VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
-
Upload
adbwaterforall -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 1/133
Edited Draft Report, (23 July 2004)
Report of the Project
The Poverty Impacts of Public Irrigation Expenditures in Vietnam
(The Asian Development Bank-The World Bank Joint Research Project)
Aldas Janaiah(International Team Leader of the Project)
Visiting Fellow, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR)Gen. A.K Vaidya Marg, Goregaon-EastMumbai-400 065, INDIATelephone # (+91-22) 2840 0919; ext. 555Fax # (+91-22) 2840 2752Email Ids: [email protected] / [email protected]
[With technical and logistic support from a Team of Researchers,Mekong Economics Ltd., Hanoi, VIETNAM]
May 2004
ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANKVietnam Resident MissionHanoi, Vietnam
THE WORLD BANK IN VIETNAM Hanoi, Vietnam
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Directors, or the governments they
represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no
responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent
with ADB official terms.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 2/133
2
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
CG Control Group
CPRGS The Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
CV Coefficient of Variation
FGDs Focused Group Discussions
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOV Government of Viet nm
GSO General Statistical Office
HCMC Ho Chi Minh City
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IGIDR Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research
IMC Irrigation Management Company
IME Irrigation Management Enterprise
JBIC Japan Bank for International CooperationMARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MKE Mekong Economics Limited
O&M Operation and Management
OLS Ordinary Least Square
TA Technical Assistance
TG Treatment Group
US $/D United States Dollars
VN D Vietnam Dongs
WB The World Bank
Currency Exchange Rates
One US Dollar = VN D 15, 200 (average in 2002)
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 3/133
3
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared based on a joint study commissioned by the Asian DevelopmentBank (ADB), and the World Bank. A team of local researchers from the MekongEconomics Ltd. (MKE), Hanoi has provided technical and logistic support in carrying outthe study. Team includes Dr. Nguyen Trung Dung, Ms. Nguyen Quynh Hoa, Ms. Le
Thanh Tam, Ms. Dinh Thi Thu Huong, Prof. Vu Thieu, and Ms. Luong Nhu Oanh.
Drs. Rob Swinkels and Nguyen The Dzung of the World Bank in Vietnam, and Mr PieterSmidt of the ADB, VRM (Hanoi) provided excellent support, guidance andencouragement during through out the study period without which the study would havenot been completed. Dr Adam Ms Carty of MKE provided useful logistic support forsuccessful completion of the study. Dr. Suresh Babu of IFPRI is a key source ofinspiration in carrying out the study successfully.
A Kick-Off meeting (inception workshop) on the design of the study was organizedduring January 2003 at the World Bank office in Hanoi. Participants from various
Ministries, academic institutions, ADB, WB, etc. attended this meeting, and provideduseful suggestions.
A large number of government officials from various organizations (such as GSO andMARD), and provincial officials of IMCs, and communes’ leaders helped the researchersnot only in the identification of study sites, but also during surveys and field visits.
The employer of the International Team Leader (Dr. Aldas Janaiah), Indira GandhiInstitute of Development Research (IGIDR), Mumbai (India) kindly permitted him tocarry out the study.
The team of the study received good cooperation from large number of farmers andcommunes’ leaders who spared their valuable time during intensive household surveys.
Assistance in the editing of the report was provided by Ms Colin Steley of MKE.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 4/133
4
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary Part-1: Introduction
1.1. Nexus between irrigation investments and poverty: a macro-level view1.2.
Objectives of the studyPart-2: Research Methodology
2.1. Design of sampling and survey2.2. Data processing and analytical methods
Part-3: Salient Features of the Selected Irrigation Scheme3.1. Song Chu irrigation scheme3.2. An Tranch irrigation scheme3.3. Dau Tieng irrigation scheme
Part-4: Presentation of Results4.1. Findings from the qualitative assessment4.2. Key hypotheses for quantitative assessment4.3. Impact indicators measured4.4. Basic features of sample households
4.5. Findings from quantitative assessment4.5.1. Song Chu irrigation scheme4.5.2. An Tranch irrigation scheme4.5.3. Dau Tieng irrigation scheme
4.6. Are tail-ended farmers benefited from the policy interventions?4.7. How effective are public irrigation expenditures across the case studies?
Part-5: Conclusions and Policy OptionsReferences
Tables
Table 1.1 Rotated matrix among inter-related variable determining poverty inVietnam (results of factor analysis)
Table 2.1 Sample size in the selected irrigation schemesTable 2.2 Sampling design, Thanh Hoa (No. of sample households)Table 2.3 Name of the village clusters covered, Thanh HoaTable 2.4 Sampling design, Quang Nam (No of households) Table 2.5 Name of the village clusters covered in Quang NamTable 2.6 Sampling design, HCMC/Tay Ninh (No of households)Table 2.7 Name of the village clusters covered, HCMC/Tay NinhTable 2.8 Number of sample households retained for final analysis after propensity
score matching, Than Hoa.Table 2.9 Number of sample households retained for final analysis after propensity
score matching in Quang NamTable 2.10 Number of sample households retained for final analysis after propensity
score matching, HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.1 Findings from the qualitative assessment on farmers’ perceptions of
impacts of recent interventions in the selected irrigation schemes(outcomes of FGDs)
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 5/133
5
Table 4.2 Location of selected sample households along main canal , Thanh HoaTable 4.3 Distribution (%) of sample households by soil quality in Thanh HoaTable 4.4 Basic features of sample households in Thanh HoaTable 4.5 Location of sample households along with canal in Quang NamTable 4.6 Distribution (%) of sample households by soil quality in Quang NamTable 4.7 Basic features of sample households in Quang Nam
Table 4,8 Location of sample households along with canal , HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.9 Distribution (%) of sample households by soil quality in HCM<C/Tay
NinhTable 4.10 Basic features of sample households in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.11 Land holding pattern of sample households in Thanh HoaTable 4.12 Status of irrigation availability and drainage of sample households, Thanh
HoaTable 4.13 Distribution of irrigated area of sample households in Thanh HoaTable 4.14 Cropping intensity in Thanh HoaTable 4.15 Cost-return profile for cultivation for rice in Thanh Hoa (per planted area
in a year)
Table 4.16 Cost-return profile for cultivation for rice in Thanh Hoa (per hectare)Table 4.17 Input cost of rice cultivation in Thanh Hoa (per hectare)Table 4.18 Cost-return profile for non-rice crops in Thanh Hoa (per planted area in a
year)Table 4.19 Coefficient of variation (%) of paddy yield in Thanh HoaTable 4.20 Percent of sample households affected by natural calamities in Thanh HoaTable 4.21 Structure of household income of the sample farmers in Thanh HoaTable 4.22 Per capita consumption expenditure on food items in Thanh HoaTable 4.23 Estimated incidence of poverty among sample households in Thanh HoaTable 4.24 Land holding pattern of sample households in Quang NamTable 4.25 Status of irrigation availability and drainage of sample households in
Quang NamTable 4.26 Distribution of irrigated area of sample households in Quang NamTable 4.27 Cropping intensity of sample households in Quang NamTable 4.28 Cost-return profile for the cultivation of rice in Quang Nam (per planted
area in a year)Table 4.29 Cost-return profile for the cultivation of rice in Quang Nam (per hectare)Table 4.30 Input costs of rice cultivation in Quang Nam (per hectare)Table 4.31 Cost-return profile for the cultivation of non-rice crops in Quang Nam (per
planted area in a year)Table 4.32 Coefficient of variation (%) of paddy yield in Quang NamTable 4.33 Percent of sample households affected by natural calamities in Quang
NamTable 4.34 Structure of household income of the sample farmers in Quang NamTable 4.35 Per capita consumption expenditure of sample households on food items
in Quang NamTable 4.36 Estimated incidence of poverty among sample households in quang nam
(per cent of total households)Table 4.37 Land holding pattern of sample households in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.38 Status of irrigation availability and drainage of sample households in
HCMC/Tay Ninh
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 6/133
6
Table 4.39 Distribution of irrigated area of sample households in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.40 Cropping intensity in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.41 Cost-return profile for cultivation of rice in HCMC/Tay Ninh (per planted
area in a year)Table 4.42 Cost-return profile for cultivation for rice in HCMC/Tay Ninh (per
hectare)
Table 4.43 Input costs of rice cultivation in HCMC/Tay Ninh (per hectare)Table 4.44 Cost-return profile for non-rice crops in HCMC/Tay Ninh (per planted
area in a year)Table 4.45 Coefficient of variation (%) of paddy yield in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.46 Per cent of sample households affected by natural calamities in
HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.47 Structure of household income of the sample farmers in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.48 Per capita consumption expenditure on food items for sample households
in HCMC/Tay NinhTable 4.49 Estimates of incidence of poverty (per cent of total households) among
sample households in HCMC/Tay Ninh
Table 4.50 Change in the key outcome indicators between rehabilitated and/orimproved management and non-rehabilitated and/typical managementareas for head-ended and tail-ended farmers under the selected irrigationschemes
Table 4.51 Change in the key outcome indicators between rehabilitated and/orimproved management and non-rehabilitated and/typical managementareas under the selected irrigation schemes
Table 4.52 Estimated efficiency indicators of public investments through various policy interventions in the selected irrigation schemes
Appendices
Appendix A1 Original concept note & ToRs, prepared by WB & ADBAppendix A2 Methodology on factor analysisAppendix A3 Questionnaire used for the surveyAppendix A4 Estimated regression models on determinants of the key outcome
indicators for the pooled sample households in Thanh Hoa 1.a Determinants of rice income in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity Score
Matching1.b Determinants of rice income in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity Score
Matching2.a Determinants of agriculture income in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity
Score Matching2.b Determinants of agriculture income in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity Score
Matching3.a Determinants of total household income in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity
Score Matching3.b Determinants of total household income in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity
Score Matching4.a Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in Thanh Hoa,
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 7/133
7
Before Propensity Score Matching4.b Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in Thanh Hoa,
After Propensity Score MatchingAppendix A5 Estimated regression models on determinants of the key outcome
indicators for the pooled sample households in Quang Nam 1.a Determinants of rice income in Quang Nam, Before Propensity Score
Matching1.b Determinants of rice income in Quang Nam, After Propensity Score
Matching2.a Determinants of agriculture income in Quang Nam, Before Propensity
Score Matching2.b Determinants of agriculture income in Quang Nam, After Propensity
Score Matching3.a Determinants of total household income in Quang Nam, Before Propensity
Score Matching3.b Determinants of total household income in Quang Nam, After Propensity
Score Matching
4.a Determinants of per capita food consumpyion expenditure in Quang Nam,Before Propensity Score Matching
4.b Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in Quang Nam,After Propensity Score Matching
Appendix A6 Estimated regression models on determinants of the key outcomeindicators for the pooled sample households in HCMC/Tay Ninh
1.a Determinants of rice income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, Before Propensity ScoreMatching
1.b Determinants of rice income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, After Propensity ScoreMatching
2.a Determinants of agriculture income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, Before
Propensity Score Matching2.b Determinants of agriculture income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, After Propensity
Score Matching3.a Determinants of total household income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, Before
Propensity Score Matching3.b Determinants of total household income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, After
Propensity Score Matching4.a Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in HCMC/Tay
Ninh, Before Propensity Score Matching4.b Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in HCMC/Tay
Ninh, After Propensity Score Matching
Appendix A7 Methodology on application of propensity score matching techniqueAppendix A8 Estimated logistic regressions on factors influencing the policy
intervention in the selected irrigation schemesAppendix A9 Frequency distribution of sample households based on propensity scores
in the selected provinces/irrigation schemesAppendix A10.a Season-wise (per planted area) cost-return profile for rice
cultivation in Thanh Hoa.Appendix A10.b Season-wise (per hectare) cost-return profile for rice cultivation in
Thanh Hoa
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 8/133
8
Appendix A11.a Season-wise (per planted area) cost-return profile for ricecultivation in Quang Nam
Appendix A11.b Season-wise (per hectare) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inQuang Nam
Appendix A12.a Season-wise (per planted area) cost-return profile for ricecultivation in hcmc/Tay Ninh
Appendix A12.b Season-wise (per hectare) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inhcmc/Tay Ninh
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 9/133
9
Executive SummaryThe primary expenditure instrument used by the Government of Vietnam to
improve rural incomes has been subsidized irrigation investments. Multilateral donorssuch as the ADB and the WB together with the GOV have invested considerable amountsof public resources for the improvement/rehabilitation of the existing irrigationinfrastructure and management systems, especially after the mid-1990s. Irrigationaccounts for about half of all public expenditures in the agricultural sector, and three-quarters of all capital investments (about US $250 million per year). Much of the fundingis obtained through international financing agencies.
The focus of the study is how various policy interventions in irrigation(rehabilitated infrastructure, improved management or combination of both) have had animpact at the micro-level (household level), particularly how they affect the poor? It alsoassesses whether investment towards the rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure ismore effective than that towards the improvement of management, or, a combination of both, in terms of its effects on poverty reduction. Specific objectives of the study are; (i)to assess the impact of public investments towards irrigation infrastructure, theimprovement of management on rice yields, farm profits, cost of production, productionuncertainties, and rural poverty under the selected irrigation schemes, and (ii) tocompare the impacts and efficiency of irrigation investments among three scenarios viz.,rehabilitated infrastructure, improved management and combination of both.
The study covered three irrigation schemes, Song Chu scheme in Thanh Hoa province (North region), where a part of the infrastructure was rehabilitated and also animprovement in the management, An Tranch scheme in Quang Nam province (Centralregion) where part of its infrastructure was rehabilitated, and thirdly, Dau Tieng scheme(Southern region) whose management was improved, being part of the scheme coveringHo Chi Minh province. Thus, each of these schemes represents a typical policy
intervention, being either a combination of a rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement (Song Chu scheme), only a rehabilitated infrastructure (An Tranch scheme),and only improved management (Dau Tieng scheme).
Both qualitative and quantitative assessments were carried out to analyze the basic research questions of the study. For a quantitative assessment, in-depth householdsurveys were conducted over a period of March to May 2003, and farm-level data on awide range of variables related to crop year, 2002, collected in the selected study sites.The total number of households surveyed was 1253, covering rehabilitated infrastructureor improved management, and non-rehabilitated or normal management in the selectedschemes. Before selection of sample study sites, the researchers visited a number of
communes/villages where interventions had taken place (infrastructure rehabilitationand/or improvement of management) and their neighboring communes/villages, whichare closely similar to those in the rehabilitated and/or improved management areas undereach selected irrigation scheme for as a control for qualitative assessment. Based onfindings of qualitative assessment, the sample study sites were selected in such way thatthe socio-economic, biophysical and institutional features of both rehabilitated and/orimproved management areas and their neighboring areas (non-rehabilitated and/or normal
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 10/133
10
management) are closely similar except a difference in irrigation infrastructure and/ormanagement or both.
Baseline survey data was not available for the selected irrigation schemes, whereinterventions took place for rehabilitation of infrastructure and/or improvement ofmanagement. Thus, determination of counterfactual is a key concern in the study. To net
out the effects caused by factors other than “interventions” on the dependant variables(impact indicators), comparison groups were formed from the sample households poolrepresenting rehabilitated infrastructure and/or improved management, and non-rehabilitated infrastructure and/or normal management. For this, a propensity scorematching technique was applied as suggested by Ravallion (2001). The aim of the propensity score matching is to find out the closest comparison group from a sample ofnon-rehabilitated infrastructure and/or normal management areas.
Findings from the qualitative assessment indicate that the interventions havesubstantially improved the availability of irrigation water, which in turn reduced production risks, improved farm income, reduced labor cost for pumping of water, and
reduced poverty under selected schemes. Based on the qualitative assessment, thehypotheses tested by the quantitative analysis of survey data is that the interventions thattook place under the selected schemes have significantly improved the availability ofirrigation water, which in turn increased rice yield, farm profits, reduced unit cost of production, reduced production uncertainties, improved household income, and reducedrural poverty.
It can be concluded from the results of the Song Chu scheme that the recentinterventions in irrigation (both rehabilitation of infrastructure and improvement ofmanagement) improved the availability of irrigation water, which in turn had a positiveeffect on yield increases, cost reduction, and income increases. On an average, there was
a gain of about 18 per cent in rice yield, 22 per cent higher income, and 14 per centhigher food expenditure due to the rehabilitated irrigation infrastructure and improvedmanagement under Song Chu irrigation scheme. These improvements led to reduction of poverty by about 12 percent in the areas where the mentioned interventions took place(rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management areas). All these improvements inthe household economy under rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management canlargely be attributed to the increased crop/farm incomes due to improved availability ofirrigation after recent interventions.
Under the An Tranch scheme (Quang Nam province), the rehabilitation of a partof irrigation infrastructure has enhanced the availability of irrigation water. There was a
22 percent reduction in owned labor costs besides increasing rice yield by 13 percent,which is a principal source of increased farm income under the rehabilitated area of AnTranch scheme.
Improved management in the Dau Tieng scheme in HCMC resulted in an increaseof the total irrigated area 16 per cent in one year, however net irrigated area nearly sameas in Tay Ninh. In addition, there a considerable improvement in the time efficiency forthe availability of irrigation in each season due to improved management of irrigation.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 11/133
11
This led to an increase in paddy yields by about 22 per cent. Further, the improvedmanagement also enhanced the productivity of non-rice crops, and amplified agriculturaldiversification.
Chu Chi, the study area representing improved management within the Dau Tiengscheme, is located relatively close to HCM City; its households have better access to
many non-farm activities, therefore, the higher income from non-crop and/or non-farmsources can not soley be attributed to the multiplier effects from the improvedmanagement in HCMC. Therefore, a significant increase in food consumption thereby byreduced poverty in HCMC could not exclusively be attributed to the improvedmanagement. However, increased rice income due to improved management of irrigationcould be one of the principal factors for increased consumption expenditure on food, and poverty reduction in HCMC.
Results show that farmers at the tail-ended of the canal system have beensubstantially benefited in increases in paddy yields, rice income, total farm income, and per capita food expenditures due to the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved
management under Song Chu scheme, and to the improved management in HCMC underDau Tieng scheme.
An important policy issues assessed is how public investments, made throughdifferent policy interventions in the selected irrigation schemes, are effective in terms oftheir impact on various outcome indicators especially on poverty reduction. Increases in percent terms of many outcome indicators such as rice yield, rice income, total householdincome and per capita food expenditure are significantly higher in HCMC wheremanagement of irrigation was improved under the Dau Tieng irrigation scheme ascompared to other schemes. Poverty reduction, as estimated on a food poverty line, wasalso much more successful in HCMC under Dau Tieng scheme as compared to other
schemes. However, increased non-farm income could have been an important factor besides the increase in rice income contributing to the rapid reduction in poverty inHCMC.
More gains in rice yields and income in absolute terms are contributed by hecombined effect of an improved irrigation infrastructure and management under the SongChu scheme as compared to by only rehabilitated infrastructure or improvedmanagement. Rehabilitated infrastructure under An Tranch scheme generated more gainsin terms of increases in total household income, food consumption, and even povertyreduction as compared to Song Chu scheme. As a whole, improved management ofirrigation (Dau Tieng scheme in HCMC) yielded more gains at household level than
other two interventions combined.
On an average, a one US Dollar investment in the rehabilitation of infrastructureand improvement of management (combined impact) under Song Chu scheme generatedUS $ 1.31 worth of incremental farm output every year at the household level. The wholeinvestment made in Song Chu scheme was recovered in just a year’s time throughincremental farm output that could primarily be attributed to these interventions.However, it took 3-4 years to recover investments made in An Tranch (rehabilitatedinfrastructure) and Dau Tieng (improved management), the other two schemes The value
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 12/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 13/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 14/133
14
mainly in those areas where there was no proper O&M system for the maintaining thecontrol of irrigation schedule as per needs.
The primary expenditure instrument used by the Government to improve ruralincomes has been subsidized irrigation investments. Multilateral donors such as the ADBand the WB as well as GOV have invested considerable amount of public resources
towards the improvement/rehabilitation of the existing irrigation infrastructure andmanagement systems especially after the mid-1990s. Irrigation accounts for about half ofall public expenditures in the agricultural sector, and three-quarters of all capitalinvestments (about US $250 million per year).1 Much of the funding is obtained throughinternational financing agencies. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB),and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) currently have irrigation projectswith total commitments of over US $500 million in Vietnam. The primary researchquestion of the study is: How effective are public irrigation expenditures in increasingrural incomes, particularly for the poor? Further, whether investment for therehabilitation of the existing infrastructure is more effective or for the improvement ofmanagement is more effective in terms of poverty reduction effects?
Rice is the major irrigated crop in Vietnam and rice production has soared from20 million tons in 1990 to over 34 million tons by 2002 (GSO, 2002). Agriculturalliberalization-especially ‘decollectivazation’ has clearly been a driving force during thisexpansion, but the impact of irrigation investments, which have more than doubledduring the 1990s, is less clear. Although there are a few studies on impacts of irrigationsector as a whole (Ut, et al., 2000; Fan et al., 2003), there are no comprehensive studieson the impact of public investments in the rehabilitation of existing irrigationinfrastructure and O&M on household income and poverty reduction. To fulfill thisinformation gap, ADB and WB have jointly initiated a study “The poverty impacts of the public irrigation expenditures in Vietnam”. The principal goal of the study is to generate
empirical evidence on how effective are the public irrigation expenditures among twomajor interventions; either rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure or improvement ofthe management, or, what is the combined impact of both rehabilitated infrastructure andimproved management in improving farm income and reducing rural poverty? Furtherdetails to the requirements of the study are available in Appendix-A1 for the detailedterms of reference and concept note of the study.
The findings from the study will help improve the strategy for ruraltransformation, which is one of the key themes of Vietnam’s CPRGS. Growth inagriculture was the driving force behind rural poverty reduction during the last decade, but in the coming decade agricultural diversification and growth in off-farm enterprises
are likely to be the key to poverty-reduction. The role of irrigation interventions in this process needs to be redefined.
The study will help GOV and donors to better understand the links betweengovernment expenditure and poverty reduction in agriculture. Thereby understanding the
1 IFPRI, “Vietnam Public Expenditure Review: Input on the Agricultural and Rural Sectors,” March 21,2000, pg. 12, Table 6.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 15/133
15
fit in line with current efforts in aligning government and donor resource allocations toGOV’s Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS).
The 2000 Vietnam public expenditure review recommended a reallocation ofspending within sectors, including agriculture. It also recommend, however, that “todecide on the extent of this reallocation will require further work on the tracking,
incidence and the impact of sectorial expenditures.” This study will help provide anempirical foundation for an analysis of public agricultural expenditures, and also serve toassist in project identification, and improve sector and overall economic management.The outputs of the study will be directly useful for the preparation, monitoring andevaluation of new WB, ADB and JBIC water resources projects. The information andanalysis will also support implementation completion reports of on going water resource projects.
1.1. Nexus between irrigation and poverty: A macro-level view
Irrigation impacts have the economy-wide effects through backward and forward
linkages, which have contributed significantly to poverty reduction in developingcountries over the past three decades (Chambers 1988; Chitale, 1994; Barker et. al. 2000;Battarai, et al, 2002). The development of irrigation infrastructure contributed to cropintensification, and improved crop production, has improved farm and non-farm incomes,labor earnings, capital assets, human capital, food availability and accessibility, etc. Rural poverty was substantially low in irrigated villages as compared to the rainfed villages inVietnam (Ut et al, 2000) as well as in other developing countries (Thakur et al, 2000;Janaiah et al, 2000). Further, the elasticity of agricultural growth to poverty reduction isgreater than the elasticity of industrial growth to poverty (Mellor, 2001). Thus, irrigationhas had a clear nexus with poverty reduction since irrigation is a crucial input to theaccelerated growth in agriculture.
Public investments in irrigation in Vietnam were doubled during the 1990s. The production of rice, the major irrigated crop, increased by nearly 65 per cent between 1991and 2002. Further, per capita GDP, at 1994 constant prices, increased from VND 2.0million to 3.7 million, about an 85 per cent increase between 1991 and 2000. AsVietnam’s economy is largely rural based, public investments in irrigation during the90’s contributed significantly to the increased economic growth through multiple effects.The impressive growth in the economy contributed to poverty reduction by half, from 58 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 2002. Therefore, poverty has had a close link to theeconomic growth, which in turn is being influenced by agriculture growth and irrigationinvestments.
Many of the determinants of poverty reduction such as per capita GDP,agriculture growth, rice production, irrigation investments, etc. are inter-related. Thus, asimple OLS regression analysis could not capture the relationship between poverty andother related variables due to serious multicollinearity among them. To understandempirically the nexus between these factors particularly irrigation and poverty reductionvariables at the macro-level, and overcome the multicollinearity problem, a factoranalysis (Please see Appendix-A2 for details on factor analysis) was carried out usingtime-series and cross section data, for the time period between 1997 to 2002. A
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 16/133
16
component matrix of the factor analysis is provided in table 1.1. About 72 per cent ofvariance was explained by the selected variables determining the poverty, being inter-related to each other. The relationship among the variables in the first component showsthat the poverty rate has a strong inverse relationship with irrigation investments. Asexpected, irrigation investments in turn had a strong positive association with coverage ofirrigated area, and rice production. In component 2, the number of irrigated pump sets
was inversely related to the share of total population engaged in agriculture (table 1.1).This implies that labor moved out of agriculture as number of irrigation pump setsincreased. The inverse relationship between per capita GDP and poverty rate incomponent 4 in Table 1.1 further confirm that economic growth contributed to the poverty reduction across provinces in Vietnam.
1.2. Objectives of the study
A macro-level overview broadly explained that irrigation investments contributedto bolster up rice supplies, improved agriculture growth and GDP growth, which in turnled to the substantial reduction in poverty across provinces. This provided an empirical
clue to set clear objectives in the study to address a key issue on how public irrigationexpenditures in recent years is effective in contributing to poverty reduction. Therefore, itis expected that public investments made by donors and GOV for the rehabilitation of theirrigation infrastructure and improvement of management in various parts of Vietnamduring 90s are likely to make a significant impact on the rural sector in the benefitedareas. Thus, the study basically aimed at analyzing two principal objectives:
(i) To assess the impact of public investments made in the rehabilitation ofthe irrigation infrastructure and the improvement of management onrice yields, farm profits, cost of production, production uncertainties,and rural poverty under the selected irrigation schemes.
(ii) To compare the impacts of irrigation investments among three
scenarios; rehabilitated infrastructure, improved management and acombination of both.
The study covered three irrigation schemes, Song Chu scheme in Thanh Hoa province in North region, where a part of the infrastructure was both rehabilitated andmanagement improved, An-Tranch scheme in Quang Nam province (Central region) forwhich a part of its infrastructure was rehabilitated, and Dau Tieng scheme (Southernregion) whose management was improved, a part of the scheme covering Ho Chi Minh province. Considerable amounts of public investments were made into these schemes byGOV as well as by other donors to rehabilitate infrastructure and/or improve managementor both during the late 90s, each schemes representing a typical policy intervention;
2. Research Methodology
2.1. Design of sampling and survey
The study is primarily aimed at generating the empirical evidence on how various policy interventions in irrigation (rehabilitated infrastructure, improved management andthe combination of both) have had an impact in the selected irrigation schemes at a
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 17/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 18/133
18
Of the 157 randomly selected households in Chu Chi District of HCMC, nearlyone-third were from each of three communes, and had an improved management ofinfrastructure (table 2.6). Similarly, 302 households were sampled covering threecommunes within two districts of Tay Ninh province, which are closely located to ChuChi, however irrigation management is not as effective as in Chu Chi where there has been no alterations to the management of its infrastructure. 8 and 4 are the number of
village clusters that exist where all samples where taken in Chu Chi of HCMC and Tay Ninh respectively (table 2.7)
A structured questionnaire was designed, which was tested for the required datafrom the selected sample households (Annexure-A3). The trained field investigatorsadministered the pre-tested questionnaires through personal interviews with thementioned households under the supervision of the researchers of the study team. Thehousehold level data collected, covering socio-economic and biophysical features ofagricultural production systems, includes the collection of such variables as resourceendowments, sources of income, detailed composition of expenditures on food items,assets, etc. The collected data of household surveys were properly encoded electronically,
all variables edited, and finally cleaned data files were prepared.
2.2. Data processing and analytical methods
First, a cross-tabulation of the descriptive statistics of the expected outcomeindicators was made, then a comparison between the two groups of sample householdsrepresenting rehabilitated and/or improved management and non-rehabilitated and/ornormal management was conducted. It was noted that the difference in the expectedoutcome indicators between these two groups was not appreciably found and for someindicators there was even a negative relationship. Then a series of regressions of the
pooled households of the two groups on expected outcome variables with number ofindependent variables including a binary variable of type of household (1=rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or improved management, and 0=non-rehabilitated infrastructureand/or normal management) were run in order to understand sources of selection biasamong sample households (Appendix A4-A6).
The baseline survey data was not available for the selected irrigation schemes,where interventions took place in the form of public investments for rehabilitation ofinfrastructure and/or improvement of management. Thus, there was no information on asthe socioeconomic background of the households in the selected sample sites in bothgroups before the public investments were made. There might be some differences in the
level of identified impact indicators between these two groups before interventions took place in the selected irrigation schemes. Further, the expected outcome variables (impactindicators) might have also been influenced by factors (unobservable variables) otherthan improved irrigation infrastructure and/or management. Therefore, a simple absolutedifference in the outcome variables such as farm income between the two groups afterinterventions may not be attributable exclusively to the considered interventions(improved infrastructure and/or management) in the selected irrigation scheme.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 19/133
19
Determining the results as being counterfactual is a key concern in any impactassessment study such as this one when the baseline data at the beginning of interventionsare not available. To net out the effects caused by factors other than “rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or improved management (interventions)” on the outcome variables(impact indicators), similar comparison groups must be formed, and where possible comefrom the sample households representing rehabilitated infrastructure and/or improved
management, and non-rehabilitated infrastructure and/or normal management. For this, a propensity score matching technique was applied as suggested by Ravallion (2001). Theaim of the propensity score marching is to find out the closest comparison group from asample of non-rehabilitated infrastructure and/or normal management area to the sampleof the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management area. ‘Closest’ is measuredin terms of observable variables, which is not related to the outcome indicators. Pleaserefer to Appendix-A7 for details on the propensity score matching technique. Theestimated logit regressions for computing propensity scores are shown in Appendix A8.
After propensity score matching, two comparable groups were formed; one fromthe sample households representing the rehabilitated infrastructure and/or improved
management, and other group from the sample households of the non-rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or normal management. Sample households in each comparison grouphave the closest propensity scores. Households whose propensity scores did not match between two groups were taken out from the sample (please see Appendix A9). Theretained samples of households in the comparison groups are expected to be relativelysimilar with respect to various socio-economic and biophysical features, except adifference in the irrigation system (rehabilitated or non-rehabilitated infrastructure, andimproved or normal management).
To verify empirically whether sample households from two comparison groupsare closely similar, except a change in irrigation system, a simple OLS regressions were
run for the pooled sample households of two comparison groups (after propensity scorematching) using the same variables as used for the original pooled households (before propensity score matching). It was found that the variable ‘type of household’representing interventions (rehabilitated infrastructure and/or improved management ornon-rehabilitated/normal management) was found significantly associated with theidentified outcome indicators after propensity score matching, while its effect was notsignificant for the pooled households of original samples (before propensity scorematching). This trend was noted almost for all important outcome indicators in all cases(Please see Appendices A4.1a-A6.4b for estimated regressions, before and after propensity score matching). This confirmed that the effect of most of the unobservablevariables on important outcome variables was netted out by carrying out propensity score
matching.
Thus, the retained households in the two comparison groups are consideredclosely similar with respect to socio-economic and biophysical features except adifference in irrigation infrastructure and/or management. The survey data of these twocomparable groups were finally used for the whole analysis in the study (Tables 2.8-2.10). Therefore any change in the outcome indicators between two comparison groups
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 20/133
20
can be exclusively attributable to the policy intervention in the irrigation (rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or improved management).
3. Salient Features of the Selected Irrigation Schemes
Three major irrigation schemes were studied for comparison between the threetypical case studies, where recent interventions took place. This section provides a briefdescription of selected irrigation schemes.
3.1. Song Chu Irrigation Scheme (Thanh Hoa Province)
Song Chu irrigation scheme is one of the 13 large schemes constructed by the Frenchcolonial regime. This scheme was completed in 1926 to irrigate a potential area of about50,000 ha. This irrigation system has been operational during the past 60-70 years despitedamages in some parts to the main infrastructure. During the reconstruction period after
the end of Vietnam War, in 1975, the required repairs and maintenance of the maininfrastructure of this scheme was not implemented adequately. Shortages of funds forsuch purposes have been the constraining factor for an excessive number of years. Theold infrastructure seriously deteriorated and as a consequence the area irrigated under thisscheme has been substantially reduced. Also, the technical and management processes forefficient O&M has been degenerated along with the deterioration of the infrastructures.2
Two interventions took place under this scheme in the mid 90s to improve theirrigation system. First, a part of the Song Chu irrigation scheme was rehabilitated by theGOV through an ADB funded Flood Protection Rehabilitation Project in the mid 90s.Later, it was felt that it was needed was to improve O&M, at the local level as well as the
provincial level. Therefore, for the second intervention the ADB supported a TA PilotProject (TA# 2867-VIE) to improve O&M of two pilot areas under canals B-6a and B-8bcovering about 300 ha each, which was completed in 1999. Under this TA project locallevel institutions such as the Water Users Associations (WUAs) were created for the better management of available water resources at the local level. Introduction of WUAs,and guidance and procedures to establish and manage WUAs were provided through participatory approaches at the local level under TA Pilot programs. After successfuldemonstration of benefits of WUAs under ADB’s TA pilot project, the IrrigationManagement Company (IMC) of Song Chu scheme has extended this model to otherareas within this scheme. Creation of WUAs helped to improve even-distribution ofirrigation for all farmers throughout Summer and Spring crop seasons under the
rehabilitated areas. The tail-ended farmers in the pilot areas were also benefited from theADB’s TA Project.
The Song Chu irrigation schemes has been selected to assess the combined impacts of‘rehabilitated infrastructure, and improved management’ on various outcome indicatorssuch as rice yields, farm income, production uncertainties and poverty.
2 Final Report “O&M development in the irrigation ector, TA No: 2869-VIE”, Asian Bank.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 21/133
21
3.2. An Trach Irrigation Scheme (Da Nang/Quang Nam Province)
The An Tranch irrigation system consists of four weirs: An Tranch (on the Vanriver), Thanh Guyt (on the La Tho river), Bau Nit and Ha Thanh (on the Qua Giangriver). All of them were constructed over the period of the 30 years during the Frenchcolonial regime.
Natural calamities such as droughts and floods are common problems under theAn Tranch scheme area. Frequent floods due to poor drainage caused a seriouswaterlogging condition, and soil salinity in many communes under the scheme.Furthermore, the irrigation canals have degraded due to poor infrastructure maintenanceand drainage. Thus, production risk is a serious concern for paddy farmers in this area.
The World Bank assisted the GOV in 1997 to rehabilitate a part of the scheme toimprove the irrigation infrastructure, which was degraded seriously by siltation,waterlogging, and other natural phenomenon. The Dong Ho canal system under thisirrigation scheme was rehabilitated with the WB’s assistance by desiltation of the canal
system, construction of a new pumping station (7 machines with a capacity of 1200 m3/h per machine), and by cementing the canal system. These repairs improved the quality ofirrigation infrastructure in Dong Ho area of the An Tranch scheme. The Thanh Quytcanal system of An Tranch scheme had not been rehabilitated, and therefore,infrastructure was and remains very poor. However, both Dong Ho and Thanh Quytcanals are gravity fed irrigation systems in combination with a pumping station andclosely situated next to each other. The only difference is that the Dong Ho system islocated upstream from the Thanh Quyt system on the Thanh Quyt weir.
This scheme was selected to study the effects of ’rehabilitated infrastructure’ on production uncertainties, rice yield, farm income and poverty.
3.3. Dau Tieng Irrigation Scheme (HCM city/Tay Ninh provinces)
Dau Tieng irrigation scheme is located on Saigon River basin, and is one of thelargest irrigation schemes, covering a catchment area of 27,000 square kilometres havingthe biggest storage reservoir of irrigation water in Vietnam.. The construction of thisscheme was completed in 1979 with the financial assistance from the World Bank. Thisscheme irrigates seven districts in Tay Ninh province, and one district (Chu Chi) in theHo Chi Minh City (HCMC) province. About 172,000 ha of area is irrigated under thisscheme, of which 20 per cent covers the Chu Chi district of HCMC, and the remaining
goes towards Tay Ninh province. The Dau Tieng reservoir and their three main canals areowned and managed by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD),Government of Vietnam, while the IMC’s (Tay Ninh and HCMC) manage thedistribution schemes (primary, secondary, tertiary canals and water head works on canal)within their provincial boundaries. The MARD has invested considerable amount of public expenditures for the improvement of a part of the Eastern canal system under DauTieng scheme. The eastern canal system covers Duong Minh Chau and Trang BangDistricts of Tay Ninh Province, and Cu Chi District of HCMC. The government of
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 22/133
22
HCMC has significantly more financial and human resources than Tay Ninh for betterirrigation management. The water fee rate in Tay Ninh province is significantly higherthan in HCMC, by 87 percent in the first (Spring) season and 33 percent in the second(Summer) season. Despite the lower water fee in HCMC than in the counterpart Tay Ninh province, the section of Eastern canal system in HCMC and the canals (primary,secondary and tertiary) are well managed. Thus, irrigation management is much better in
Chu Chi of HCMC than in the rest of the eastern canal system belonging to the Tay Ninh province. There is no difference in irrigation infrastructure, market access and othergeographic features between these two areas except difference in irrigation management.Therefore, if there is any difference in farm income between Chu Chi area and the rest ofeast canal in Tay Ninh, intuitively it should be largely due to difference in irrigationmanagement.
Thus, this scheme was selected to analyze the impacts of an ‘improved irrigationmanagement’ on crop productivity, farm income and poverty reduction.
4. Presentation of Results
This section presents findings from both qualitative and quantitative assessments.Also, key hypotheses and impact indicators identified are discussed in the followingsection.
4.1. Findings from the qualitative assessment:
The team of researchers of the study visited 2 to 3 representative communes in theareas of the selected irrigation schemes where interventions took place recently.Also, one or two neighboring communes, where no interventions took place in eachselected scheme were also researched. The team conducted Focused GroupDiscussion’s (FDG’s) with concerned officials of the IMCs, commune leaders andfarmers in order to understand the farmer level differences in expected benefits of theirrigation system between two groups of communes (intervention and no intervention)in the selected schemes. Major findings of FGDs (mostly qualitative aspects) duringthe field visits are summarized in table 4.1.
In general, the irrigation systems that team visited had degraded over the past 10-15 years. Thus, many pumping stations have emerged over the period nearer to themain and secondary canals, both publicly managed (IMC and communes) and privately managed (individual farmers) to minimize uncertainty in the availability ofirrigation water from main/secondary canals. Some communes have lost irrigationsources from canals over the period. In some communes, cropped area under rice hasdecreased due to non-availability of irrigation water, mainly during the second(Summer) crop season. Further, the conditions of the O&M of the selected schemes(Song Chu, An Tranch and Dau Tieng) were highly ineffective until the mid 1990s.
A part of the Song Chu scheme was rehabilitated and management was improvedafter the mid 1990s. Similarly, a part of the An Tranch irrigation infrastructure wasalso rehabilitated, while management was improved under the Dau Tieng scheme
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 23/133
23
covering Chu Chi area (HCMC). Farmers as well as communes’ leaders reported thatthese interventions under these schemes have substantially improved the availabilityof irrigation water, which in turn reduced production risks and improved crop yields(Table 4.1). On contrary, the availability of irrigation water is unreliable in the non-rehabilitated and/or normal management areas, especially for tail-ended canal areas.From the FGDs with key participants it was clearly noted that under three irrigation
schemes significant improvements in the agricultural production systems were underrehabilitated infrastructure and/or improved management as compared to theirneighboring areas (non-rehabilitated and normal management). Farmers reportedconsiderably higher yields coupled with lower production costs, especially lowerlabor cost for irrigation in the areas where interventions took place as compared totheir counterparts in the neighboring areas. (Disorganized paragraph, might want torephrase a number of sentences for more fluidity in what is desired to be express)
Prior to the interventions, household members including women and childrenwere used to attend the manual lifting of water from small stored tanks to save cropsfrom non-availability of water from the main and secondary canals. After
rehabilitation of infrastructure and/or improvement of management under some areasof the schemes, the availability of irrigation water was improved which has asecondary effect that resulted in reduction of drudgery on women, enabling them tohave more time to care for children (Song Chu and An Tranch schemes). Thus, it wasalso noted that the required family labor for pumping the water had drasticallyreduced in the areas where infrastructure was rehabilitated and or managementimproved, as compared to their neighboring counterparts (no interventions) in theselected scheme areas. Thus, rehabilitation of infrastructure and/or improvement ofmanagement have released more family labor from farm/irrigation activities andhelped to engage them in non-farm employment. Thus, proportion of householdincome originating from non-crop activities (also non-farm activities in some areas) is
appreciably higher under rehabilitated infrastructure and/or improved managementthan under non-rehabilitated and/or normal management areas. Further, availability offamily labor for child-care has improved due to reduced demand for manual pumpingof water after interventions took place. The improved infrastructure and managementafter recent interventions (Song Chu and An Tranch) has diffused conflicts amongfarmers for water sharing and subsequently led to more harmony and peace in thesociety. However, it is important to note that these social problems clearly exist in theneighboring areas where no interventions took place. Therefore, on a whole, farmer’s perceptions indicated that the interventions in the selected areas have brought asignificant change in the rural livelihoods of the farm and non-farm households.
4.2. Key hypotheses
Findings from the qualitative assessment, as discussed above, are largelysubjective and based on perceptions of the farmers and commune leaders. It is hard todraw any empirical conclusion based on qualitative assessment. However, it provided aclear base for the identification of key issues and hypotheses to be tested by quantitativeanalysis from intensive survey data collected from the sample households.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 24/133
24
Based on the qualitative assessment, the following key hypotheses were tested by
the quantitative analysis of survey data. The rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure(An Trench scheme), improvement of management (Dau Tieng scheme), and thecombination of both-rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management (Song Chuscheme) have significantly improved availability of irrigation water, which in turn
a)
increased rice yield, farm profits,b) reduced unit cost of production,c) reduced production uncertainties,d)
improved household income, ande) reduced rural poverty
These key hypotheses are tested in each of the selected scheme by quantitativeanalysis of farm household survey data collected from the three irrigation schemes (casestudies).
4.3. Impact indicators measured and analyzed
The foremost objective of the study is to measure and analyze the net contribution of public investments made towards the improvement of irrigation infrastructure and/ormanagement in the selected schemes for sole objective of poverty reduction. What are themeasurable outcome variables (impact indicators) that could be quantified to test theabove key hypotheses? Findings from the qualitative assessment provided reasonableclues on what indicators could be measured to capture the impacts of the interventions inthe selected irrigation schemes. The following indicators were identified and quantifiedfor the study.
(a) Cropping intensity
(b)
Crop income(c) Production risks(d) Household income(e)
Food consumption expenditure(f) Incidence of poverty
4.4. Basic features of sample households
After propensity score matching was carried out, a sizeable number of sample
households (whose propensity scores were not closely matched between two groups)were dropped from both sample groups. The retained sample households after matchingwith propensity scores between two groups ought to be closely similar with respect tosocio-economic and biophysical features, apart from a difference in irrigationinfrastructure and/or management. Then, any change in the outcome variables betweentwo comparison groups could be exclusively attributable to the interventions (improvedinfrastructure and/or management). However, it is essential to look at the basic featuresof sample households whether they are closely related with respect to important non-
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 25/133
25
outcome variables such as the location of sample farms, soil quality, and other socio-economic aspects in the selected irrigation schemes (tables 4.2-4.10).
Song Chu irrigation scheme. Nearly one-thirds of sample households are each distributed between the head, mid and end of the canal areas in both groups (rehabilitatedinfrastructure and improved management and non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal
management) within the Song Chu irrigation (table 4.2). By and large, the proportions ofsample households located at various locations of the canal system are nearly same in both areas. Further, the distribution pattern of sample farms by soil type is closely similarto both areas (table 4.3). The other socio-economic features of sample households in bothgroups are nearly same apart from difference in education (table4.4). Improvements ineducation may also be considered as a long run indirect effect of the improved irrigationinfrastructure and management.
An Tranch irrigation scheme. Most of the basic socio-economic and biophysical featuresof the sample households are by and large similar in rehabilitated and non-rehabilitatedareas except a major difference in the location of sample households (table 4.5-4.7). More
sample households in the non-rehabilitated area are located at the head canal as comparedto the rehabilitated, because the non-rehabilitated area (Thanh. Quyt commune) is locatedat the upstream of the main reservoir. This difference is expected to uncover a part ofeffect that could have otherwise been attributed to the rehabilitated infrastructure. This isone of the sampling caveats experienced for this scheme.
Further note that study sites representing non-rehabilitated infrastructure arelocated in the industrial zone, and nearer to the main highway road. Therefore, it wasexpected that non-farm income of original sample would be higher in the non-rehabilitated areas than in the rehabilitated areas. However, a comparison group ofhouseholds from the samples of non-rehabilitated areas was formed, which were closely
similar to those samples in the rehabilitated areas after propensity score matching.Therefore, it was confirmed that there would not be a significant difference in the non-farm income between the retained sample of the rehabilitated area and that of the non-rehabilitated area.
Dau Tieng. The sample sites representing the ‘improved management’ under Dau Tiengirrigation scheme (Chu Chi district, HCMC) are located closer to HCMC. Therefore,some differences still exist between sample households in the Chu Chi (improvedmanagement) and Tay Ninh (normal management) even after forming two comparisongroups through propensity score matching technique, including a few socio-economicand biophysical features. Thus, the difference in key impact indicators especially non-
farm income between HCMC and Tay Ninh may not be attributable exclusively to theimproved irrigation management, as sample households in HCMC will have betteropportunities for non-farm activities. Tables 4.8 to 4.10 provide data collected on themain features of the sample households in both areas.
There is a considerable difference in the location of sample households betweenHCMC and Tay Ninh (table 4.8). About 43 per cent are located in the head canal inHCMC while only 29 per cent in Tay Ninh, as the former is closely located at the east
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 26/133
26
canal system of Dau Tieng scheme. Further, the basic household features such as age,education, and family size in HCMC (improved management) are some what differentfrom those households representing normal management (Tay Ninh) as shown in table4.10).
4.5. Findings from the quantitative analysis of household survey data
Major findings from the quantitative analysis of household survey data arediscussed in detail below.
4.5.1. Song Chu irrigation scheme
This scheme was selected to find the impacts of the Water Users Associations(WUAs), created by the ADB’s TA pilot project for improved management, which werealso rehabilitated with ADB’s financial assistance for improvement of infrastructure in1997. Therefore, the results from this case study provide broadly the combined effect ofrehabilitated infrastructure and improved management on the identified impact indicators.
The results presented below are based on the analysis of survey data related to crops forthe year 2002.
Land endowments and irrigation status. Land is a principal resource for rural livelihoodin Vietnam. An average size of land holding owned by each holding in Vietnam is verysmall, roughly about 0.1 to 0.2 ha. Land was distributed among households during thelate 1980s and early 1990s (at the time of decollectivisation of land holdings) in such waythat every household gets nearly equal share of all types of soil quality. Thus, landfragments (number of parcels) are more at household level in Vietnam. Further, size ofland holding owned by household vary from location to location within the same province/district depending upon availability of cultivable land and number of
households living in that location.
The land holding pattern of sample households in the study sites of Thanh Hoa province under Song Chu irrigation scheme was shown in table 4.11. On average, landarea owned by sample households in the rehabilitated and improved management areawas 2578 m2, which is about 90 percent higher than in non-rehabilitated and normalmanagement area. 4 or 5 are the number of parcels of land distributed in the study sites.As land ownership was transferred to the individual households recently, land market hasnot yet developed. Only about 10 per cent of net cultivated area was leased, in therehabilitated and improved management areas while it was negligible in non-rehabilitatedand normal management area. Net irrigated area was about 2650 square meters in the
rehabilitated and improved management area, which is about 1.5 times higher than thenon-rehabilitated and normal management area. However in relative terms, about 93 percent of net cultivated area was covered with irrigation in the rehabilitated and improvedmanagement area while only about 80 per cent in non-rehabilitated and normalmanagement area (table 4.11).
An important finding is that the extent of irrigation availability, and drainagefacilities in absolute figures (area coverage) in each season have improved in therehabilitated and improved management area as compared to non-rehabilitated and
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 27/133
27
normal management areas (table 4.12). This confirmed that the farmers perceptionduring qualitative assessment that the interventions under Song Chu scheme haveimproved available irrigation water, which will likely benefit farmers with higher cropyields, higher farm income and better living conditions in the areas where interventionstook place. As a whole, the percentage of net irrigated area for which irrigation water wasavailable at the right time is higher in the areas where interventions took place than in the
counterpart areas (table 4.12). In fact, the public investments made for the rehabilitationof the irrigation infrastructure and improvement of O&M. improved mainly the quality ofirrigation.
The distribution of irrigated area at various locations along the main canal in thestudy sites is presented in table 4.13. The share of net irrigated area located at the head-end of the main canal was higher in the non-rehabilitated and normal management areasthan in the rehabilitated and improved management areas. The difference in percentage ofnet irrigated area to net cultivated area, and percentage of gross irrigated area to netirrigated area was not statistically significant between rehabilitated and improvedmanagement area, and non-rehabilitated and normal management areas.
Cropping intensity. It is hypothesized based on farmer perceptions during qualitativeassessment that the improved irrigation infrastructure and management would allowfarmers to cultivate the available land for two or three seasons in a year, increasingcropping intensity. However, the estimated difference in cropping intensity of the samplehouseholds between rehabilitated and improved management and non-rehabilitated andnormal management areas was not statistically significant (table 4.14). Samplehouseholds in the both areas are located in the neighboring communes/villages under thesame irrigation scheme. However, uncertainty in the availability of irrigation water is akey concern for the non-rehabilitated and normal management areas. It appears that
farmers in the non-rehabilitated and normal management areas are cultivating theirlimited land for two seasons per year, as their counterparts in the rehabilitated andimproved management areas, and therefore possibly expecting that irrigation would beavailable for even second crop season. Thus, the cropping intensity was on the whole thesame in both the rehabilitated and improved management, and non-rehabilitated andnormal management areas.
Crop incomes. The improvement in the timely and evenly availability of irrigation wateris expected to increase crop incomes through three important means; a) increasing cropyield, b) reducing cost of production, specially labor cost for pumping water, andreducing the production risks. Crop income was examined, from rice crop and non-crops
crops and between the rehabilitated and improved management, and the non-rehabilitatedand normal management areas.
Rice is a principal crop in the study sites, accounting for nearly 85-90 per cent ofthe gross cultivated area in the sample farms. Thus, rice income forms a major share offarm income. A detailed cost-to-return profile for rice crop per total planted area in a yearfor rehabilitated and improved management, and non-rehabilitated and normalmanagement area is summarized in table 4.15 (season-wise details are presented inAppendix A10-a). Area planted to rice crop in two crop seasons together was more than
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 28/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 29/133
29
Average yield gain per hectare in a year (two seasons) was 18 per cent higher
between rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management areas, to that of the non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management areas (table 4.16). Per hectare netreturn to rice cultivation was nearly double in the former group than in the later group.This significant difference in net return to rice between two groups of sample households
was primarily due to improved availability of irrigation water, and reduction in production costs in the areas where interventions took place (rehabilitated infrastructureand improved management).
Vietnam’s agriculture is one of the fast diversifying sectors in Asia, especiallyafter the early 90s. In addition to rice crop, non-rice crops are also becoming an importantsource of crop income, meeting family needs. Major non-rice crops cultivated by thesample households in the study sites under Song Chu schemes are cassava, potato, andcorn. Usually, these crops are grown in-between seasons as a third crop using residualsoil moisture, when canal irrigation was stopped. Further, non-rice crops are also grownin the areas especially at the tail end-canal areas where availability of water is a serious
constraint for rice crops. On an average, 476 and 420 square meters of land area was planted to non-rice crops under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement, and non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management areasrespectively (table 4.18). The difference in all costs and return per hectare for non-ricecrops between two groups of sample was not significant. It is important to note from table4.18 that cash income from the sales of non-rice crop products is greater for the non-rehabilitated and normal management area. Further, it indicates that the saved labor from pumping of water appears to be engaged in non-farm activities rather than in non-ricecrops under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management.
Production risks. Improvements in the availability of water after rehabilitation of
infrastructure and improvement of management have expected to minimize the risks(variability) in the crop production. To test this hypothesis, the coefficient of variation(CV) in yield of paddy (season-wise) was computed separately for groups of samplehouseholds. Coefficient of variation (CV) indicates variability in yield, which may beconsidered as an indicator of production risk due to various biotic and abiotic factors. IfCV is greater it means that there are higher production risks.
As shown in table 4.19, the estimated coefficient of variation in rice yields wassignificantly higher among the sample households of the non-rehabilitated infrastructureand normal management areas as compared to the rehabilitated infrastructure andimproved management area during both seasons. This points out that the production risks
were significantly reduced due to rehabilitated irrigation infrastructure and improvedmanagement. Further, the positive effect of the improved irrigation system on productionrisk was higher in season 2 than in season 1.
To further confirm these results, a subjective assessment was made based on the perception of the sample households on the occurrence of natural calamities such asfloods and droughts over the past five years (1997-2002). About 11 percent of samplehouseholds under the non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management areareported that floods, droughts or both have affected their farms at least for one or more
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 30/133
30
years over the past five years (table 4.20). Only 2 per cent of the sample of farmsreported the incidence of floods under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement. Therefore, the improved irrigation infrastructure after rehabilitation, and better management through WUAs contributed to lowering the effects of naturalcalamities, and reduced production risks.
Structure of household income: Various sources of household income were computed forthe sample households, and summarized in table 4.21. Farm-operating surplus wasconsidered for crop income as it includes both net return and earnings (wages) to ownedfamily labor for their work in own crop production.
Total household incomes of the farmers sampled were about VND 12 million and10 million under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management, and non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management areas respectively (table 4.21). Thedifference in the household income between two areas was 22 per cent, being statisticallysignificant. The household per capita income was 24 per cent higher in areas ofinterventions than in their neighboring areas.
Share of agriculture income to total household income was 52 per cent (VND 6.3million) in the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management areas while it wasonly 26 per cent (2.6 million) in the non-rehabilitated and normal management areas.Further, the share of crop income was significantly higher in the rehabilitatedinfrastructure and improved management area than in non-rehabilitated infrastructure andnormal management area. There are two main sources of differences in crop incomes between the two groups of sample households. First, the gross cultivated area was nearlydouble under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management as compared tothe non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management areas. Secondly, net incomefrom crops per unit land area was significantly higher under the rehabilitated
infrastructure and improved management due to increased crop yields and reduced production costs due to the improved availability of water.
The non-farm income was significantly higher under the non-rehabilitatedinfrastructure and normal management area than under the rehabilitated infrastructure andimproved management (table 4.21). Note that the study sites representing non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management area under Song Chu irrigationscheme are located near riverbanks, which are popular tourist places in the area. Thehouseholds in this area have more access to non-farm self-employment opportunitiessuch as boating, transport, small-scale trade, and other tourism derived incomes becauseof tourists. Therefore, the share of non-farm income to the total income was nearly three-
fourths (about VN D 7.2 million) under the non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normalmanagement areas, while it was only 48 per cent (VN D 5.7 million) in the rehabilitatedinfrastructure and improved management areas. However, it is important to note that a part of non-farm incomes under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement could be attributed to the saved labor from the pumping of water, that wereengaged in non-farm activities.
Food consumption expenditure Per capita food consumption expenditure is widelyconsidered as an ideal indicator of poverty. Detailed food expenditure pattern was
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 31/133
31
collected from the sample households, and analyzed to understand the poverty effect ofthe rehabilitated irrigation infrastructure and/or improved management in the selectedirrigation schemes. The estimated per capita food expenditure on various items for SongChu irrigation scheme (Thanh Hoa) was presented in table 4.22.
The per capita food expenditure per person was significantly higher by about 14
per cent for the sample households under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement areas than their counterparts under the non-rehabilitated infrastructure andnormal management areas. The sample households under the rehabilitated infrastructureand improved management areas spent significantly higher expenditures on milk andmilk products, and fruits and vegetables as compared to their counterparts under non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normal management. In general, the composition of foodexpenditures on other items is similar in both areas. As income levels of households arehigh under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management areas due toincreased crop yields and crop incomes, because of improved irrigation infrastructure andmanagement, these households are able to consume higher nutrition value foods such asmilk products, fruits, vegetables, etc. An important issue is whether the higher average
food consumption is reflected in poverty reduction under the rehabilitated infrastructureand improved management areas.
Incidence of poverty. The ultimate goal of a policy intervention in the irrigation sector isto reduce rural poverty by enhancing rural income. As discussed above, on an averagethere was a gain by about 22 per cent higher income, and 14 per cent higher foodexpenditure due to the rehabilitated irrigation infrastructure and improved managementunder Song Chu irrigation scheme. It is important to look at whether these gains inaverage income and food expenditures are transferred to the poor in terms of povertyreduction under the rehabilitated infrastructure and improved management areas. Thiswill also partly explain equity in the distribution of benefits of a policy intervention.
General Statistical Office (GSO), a department of the GOV, fixed the food poverty line at VND 1,372,774 in 2002. This threshold level of food expenditures,adjusted against food price, indices for the concerned region was used to estimate thenumber of sample households who are below food poverty line. These estimates of food poverty are compared with overall poverty based on wealth ranking by the concernedcommunes (table 4.23). The estimated poverty based on food poverty line was about 12 per cent lower in the areas where interventions took place (rehabilitated infrastructure andimproved management areas) as compared to their neighboring areas (non-rehabilitatedinfrastructure and normal management areas). This reduction in poverty can largely beattributed to the increased in crop/farm incomes due to rehabilitated infrastructure and
improved management as policy interventions. Further the overall poverty, based onwealth ranking, was also appreciably lower under the rehabilitated infrastructure andimproved management areas than under non-rehabilitated infrastructure and normalmanagement.
It can be concluded from the results of Song Chu scheme that the recentinterventions in irrigation (rehabilitation of infrastructure and improvement ofmanagement) improved the availability of irrigation water, which in turn had a positiveeffect on yield increases, cost reduction, and income increases. On an average there was a
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 32/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 33/133
33
availability is uncertain in the second season for those farmers located at the end canal,especially in the non-rehabilitated area, rice cultivation occurred for all land even in thesecond season. Thus, serious crop failures are quite often in the non-rehabilitated mainlyin the second season due to non-availability of irrigation water. These problems arenearly absent under rehabilitated infrastructure.
Crop income. Farmers’ income to rice and non-rice crops was estimated after accountingfor all purchased input costs, and results are presented in tables 4.28-4.30.
Rice crop dominates the agricultural production system in the study area under AnTranch scheme. The area planted towards rice in a crop year was substantially higher inthe rehabilitated area than in the non-rehabilitated area. Thus, all income and costvariables such as paddy output, gross return, purchased input costs, etc. were alsosignificantly higher for the rehabilitated area than for non-rehabilitated area (table 4.28).Further, all available land area planted to rice in season 1 and 2 was in both rehabilitatedand non-rehabilitated areas, showing no difference in cropping intensity between thesetwo areas (Appendix-A11a).
Average paddy output from the planted area in a year was about 2 tons and 1.5tons in the rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated areas respectively, the difference beingstatistically significant (table 4.28). Household members consumed about 77 per cent of paddy output (1.5 tons) in the rehabilitated area while this figure for non-rehabilitatedarea was 85 per cent (1.3 tons). This shows that the farmers have relatively moremarketed surplus in the rehabilitated area (23 percent) than in the non-rehabilitated area(15 percent).
Per hectare cost-to-return profile for rice was presented in table 4.29. Rice yieldsin both seasons are appreciably higher in the rehabilitated area than in non-rehabilitated
area (refer Appendix A11-b for season-wise details). On an average, sample farmers inthe rehabilitated area harvested about 13 per cent higher yields/ha with marginally lowertotal production costs (table 4.29). However purchased input costs are marginally higher(not significant) for the rehabilitated area. On contrary, owned labor costs aresignificantly lower at 22 per cent for the rehabilitated than for the non-rehabilitated areas(table 4.29). Therefore, farm-operating surplus (net return plus earnings to owned labor)was significantly higher for the rehabilitated area than for non-rehabilitated area. Further,the rehabilitated infrastructure reduced the requirement of own family labor for ricecultivation, largely for the pumping of water. The released labor from rice due torehabilitation of infrastructure could have engaged either in non-rice crop or non-farmactivities. This implies that productivity to family labor was considerably more in the
rehabilitated areas as compared to the non-rehabilitated area besides enhancing laborearnings from non-rice crop/non-farm activities.
From table 4.29-4.30, it can be concluded that increase in rice yield was a principal source of increased rice income in the rehabilitated areas where irrigationinfrastructure was rehabilitated.
Non-rice crops played a meager role in the study areas under the An Tranchscheme. Areas planted to non-rice crops were much less i.e. less than 5 per cent of gross
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 34/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 35/133
35
difference in the irrigation system. Detailed food expenditure pattern for the samplehouseholds was summarized in table 4.35.
There was about 21 per cent increase in total per capita food expenditure for thesample households in the rehabilitated area as compared to the non-rehabilitated area. Percapita per annum food expenditure on all items was about VND 1.5 and 1.3 million in the
rehabilitated and non-rehabilitated areas respectively. Among various food items, theconsumption of high nutritive foods such as meat and meat products, and fruits andvegetables was significantly higher in the rehabilitated area as compared to the non-rehabilitated area (table 4.35). Thus, nutrition and health status of the household membersis likely to be better in the rehabilitated area than their counterparts in non-rehabilitatedarea, which can largely be attributed to the increased farm income as the non-farmincome was same between two areas (multiplier effects of the improved irrigationinfrastructure).
Incidence of poverty: The official food poverty line provided by GSO was used tocompute incidence of food poverty among the sample households in the study area. The
increase in per capita food consumption expenditure has adequately reflected in reductionof food poverty in the rehabilitated area. The estimated number of sample householdswho were below food poverty line was 33 per cent in the rehabilitated area, which about38 per cent lower than the food poverty in the non-rehabilitated area (table 4.36).However, the overall poverty based on wealth ranking was substantially higher than theestimated food poverty in the study areas. The overall poverty based on wealth rankingwas also considerably lower in the rehabilitated area. Increase in food consumption dueto increased farm income because of the improved availability of irrigation watercontributed to the significant reduction of poverty in the rehabilitated area under AnTranch scheme.
4.5.3. Dau Tieng irrigation scheme (Tay Ninh/HCMC):
A part of Dau Tieng irrigation scheme that irrigates Chu Chi district of HCMC isconsidered as the best managed irrigation infrastructure compared to other parts of thesame scheme in Tay Ninh province. However, there is no difference in irrigationinfrastructure. The provincial government of HCMC has more human and financialresources for better management of the irrigation infrastructure of a part of Dau Tiengscheme within its provincial boundaries, as compared to that of Tay Ninh province.Therefore, the key intervention that took place under this scheme was the ‘improvementof management’ in HCMC while the other parts of the same scheme in Tay Ninh has‘normal management’. The main hypothesis tested for this case is that the ruralhouseholds are well off with increased farm income in Chu Chi district of HCMC(improved management as) compared to other parts of Dau Tieng covered in Tay Ninh province (normal management). Results of identified outcome indicators, originatingfrom the analysis of survey data, are presented below.
Land endowment and irrigation status. Land holding pattern of the sample households is by and large similar in both study sites of HCMC (improved management) and Tay Ninh(normal management). Average land area owned by the sample households in all the
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 36/133
36
study sites is about 0.6 hectare (table 4.37), which is much higher than the average landarea owned by households in the other two cases (Thanh Hoa and Quang Nam). Thenumber of land parcels were less in HCMC and Tay Ninh provinces as compared toThanh Hoa and Quang Nam provinces. Another distinguish feature in this case study isthat land market is fairly existent in HCMC, as about 10 per cent (about 500 M2) ofcultivated land was leased.
Almost 95-to-97 per cent of net cultivated area was irrigated in both study areas.However extent of irrigated area sown to each season was significantly higher in theHCMC in Tay Ninh (table 4.38). Total irrigated area in a year was 16 per cent higherunder improved management in HCMC, although net irrigated area was nearly same in both study areas. In addition, there was also considerable improvement in the timelyavailability of irrigation in each season due to improved management of irrigation inHCMC. However, there was not much difference in the drainage facilities betweenHCMC and Tay Ninh. It implies that the availability of irrigation water has significantlyincreased due to improved management in HCMC as compared to Tay Ninh. This alsoexplains that the available irrigated area is cultivated more intensively in HCMC as
compared to Tay Ninh. Another distinction between these two provinces under the DauTieng scheme is that irrigated area located at the head-ended canal was significantlyhigher in HCMC than in Tay Ninh (table 4.39).
Cropping intensity. Although there is no significant difference in net cultivated area between the two study areas, gross cultivated area was about 17 per cent higher for thesample households whose irrigation management is better in HCMC as compared to Tay Ninh. Thus, cropping intensity was significantly higher in HCMC than in Tay Ninh (table4.40). Further, crop production is highly diversified in HCMC and Tay Ninh provincesunlike in Thanh Hoa and Quang Nam. Non-rice crops such as corn, cassava, potatoes,and other vegetables, are grown in considerable land in the region.
Crop income: Rice is an important crop in the region, accounting 70 per cent of total planted area. Rice is grown thrice a year in most parts of the study sites in both in HCMCand Tay Ninh provinces. Thus, rice contributes substantially to the household income.
Cost-return details per total planted area of rice cultivation in a year (sum of allseasons) were furnished in tables 4.41-4.42. Area planted to rice was significantly higherin HCMC than in Tay Ninh in all seasons (refer Appendix A12a for season wide costreturn details), although there is no significance in net cropped area between the two provinces. Therefore, all input costs and returns were also significantly more in HCMC.In all seasons together, the difference in area planted to rice was only 30 per cent between
HCMC and Tay Ninh. However, total paddy output was about 5.1 tons in HCMC, whichwas nearly 57 per cent higher than the paddy output in Tay Ninh. Total quantity of paddyoutput sold in the market (marked surplus) was nearly 60 per cent of total paddy producein both areas. This indicates that rice production is one of the major income-generatingfarm activities besides meeting family food needs in HCMC and Tay Ninh provinces,unlike in Thanh and Quang Nam provinces.
Is per hectare rice income higher in HCMC than in Tay Ninh? Table 4.42 showsthat paddy yields are significantly higher by about 22 per cent under improved
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 37/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 38/133
38
However, rice contributed only about 14 per cent (VN D 2.6 million) in HCMC wherenon-rice crops (high value crops), and non-crop farm sources (livestock, fisheries, etc)accounted 36 per cent of total income. Sample households received about 77 per cent ofhigher non-farm income in HCMC as compared to households in Tay Ninh (table 4.47).As study sites (Chu Chi) representing the improved management of irrigation are locatedcloser to HCM City, these households have better access to many non-farm activities.
Therefore, the higher income from non-crop and/or non-farm sources could not beattributed exclusively to the multiplier effects of improved management in HCMC. Nevertheless, the improved management of irrigation enhanced rice income, and alsoaccelerated the agricultural diversification, which resulted in higher non-rice crop incomefor the farm households in HCMC.
Food consumption expenditure: Households spent substantially higher expenditure onvarious foods items in HCMC than in Tay Ninh (table 4.48). Average consumptionexpenditures per person on all food items in HCMC and Tay Ninh were about VN D 1.9million and 1.2 million respectively. Share of rice in the total food expenditure wasconsiderably lower in HCMC (29 per cent) than in Tay Ninh (35 per cent). This is
because consumption of high value food items such as meet, fish and shrimp, and fruits,and vegetables was significantly more in HCMC as compared to Tay Ninh. It isimportant to recognize that the increased food consumption in HCMC can not beattributed solely to the improved management of irrigation. As sample households inHCMC have more income originating from non-farm sources, there might be otherfactors such as more access of non-farm activities thereby increased on-farm income thatcould have also contributed to the improved consumption expenditure. However,increased rice income due to improved management of irrigation system could be one ofthe principal factors for increased consumption expenditure on food in HCMC.
Incidence of poverty. Food poverty was significantly lower in HCMC than in Tay Ninh.
Nearly half of the sample households were below the food poverty index in Tay Ninhwhile it was only a quarter in HCMC (table 4.49). Paradoxically, overall povertyreported by sample households based on official wealth ranking was higher in the samplesites of HCMC than those sites in Tay Ninh. This calls for a critical assessment of poverty criteria adopted by the GOV to rank households whether a particular householdis poor or non-poor.
4.6. Are tail-ended farmers benefited from the policy interventions?
Usually, tail-ended farmers are the worst affected ones due to the degradation ofthe irrigation systems due to poor O&M of the canal systems.. Thus one of the principal
goals of the rehabilitation and/or improved management of irrigation infrastructure is toensure the availability of irrigation water at the right time to the tail-ended farmers underthe system. The key issue analyzed here is differential effects of rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or improved management for the head-ended and tail-ended farmersacross the selected irrigation schemes.
Table 4.50 shows ‘changes’ in the major outcome indicators between the areas of policy interventions and their neighboring areas (no interventions) for the head-ended andtail-ended farmers under the selected irrigation schemes. Farmers at tail-ended canal
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 39/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 40/133
40
US $ invested to increase one percent of farm income/household through eachintervention? How many US $ invested per one percent increase of per capita foodconsumption expenditures through each intervention? Answers to these questions would broadly provide an empirical base to identify which intervention are more efficient andeffective in terms of increases in farm income and poverty reduction. To estimate theseindicators, required data on irrigation investments made by ADB in Song scheme, the
World Bank in An Tranch scheme and MARD in Dau Tieng scheme were collected fromrespective agencies along with number of households covered in each benefited areaunder each scheme.
The estimated efficiency parameters for each intervention (case study) aresummarized in table 4.52. On an average, one US Dollar investment in the rehabilitationof infrastructure and improvement of management (combined impact) under Song Chuscheme generated US $1.31 worth of incremental farm output every year at householdlevel. In otherwise, the whole investment made in Song Chu scheme recovered just in ayear in terms of incremental farm output that could primarily be attributed to theseinterventions. However, it took 3 to 4 years to recover investments made in the two other
schemes; An Tranch (rehabilitated infrastructure) and Dau Tieng (improvedmanagement), as the value of incremental farm output per US $1 of investments in thesescheme is about US $0.30-0.35 every year. Further on average, it was estimated that US $1.42 investment resulted in an increase of one percent in farm income/household underSong Chu scheme, while these figures are US $ 5.15 and 11.07 for An Tranch and DauTieng scheme respectively (table 4.52).
Another important indicator that explains efficiency and effectiveness of publicinvestment is the amount of US $ invested that resulted in an increase of one percent inthe per capita food consumption expenditure at a household level. As shown in table4.52, an investment of US $ 13-14 resulted in an increase of one percent in per capita
food consumption expenditure under Song Chu and Dau Tieng schemes, while this figureis moderately higher for An Tranch scheme. Further, the average amount investedthrough each intervention that brought one poor household above poverty was US $2773, 2692 and 1819 under Dau Tieng, Song Chu and An Tranch scheme areasrespectively. Note that a large number of non-poor households were also substantially benefited with increased farm income due to the interventions under the selectedschemes.
What are the policy implications of these numbers? Results from table 4.51 and4.52 broadly imply the public investments in the rehabilitation of infrastructure andimprovement of management (combined effect) is more efficient in terms of additional
output generated, and its effects on food consumption. However, rehabilitation ofinfrastructure seems to be a more effective policy intervention in terms of povertyreduction effect, followed by the combination of rehabilitated and improvedmanagement. Therefore, the rehabilitation of the existing irrigation systems ought to begiven a priority followed by improvement of its management that could help reduce poverty and improve farm income more efficiently. Results also suggest that merelyinvesting on management does not yield more gains in terms of poverty reduction unlessirrigation infrastructure is rehabilitated.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 41/133
41
5. Conclusions and Policy Options
The primary research question of the study is shed a light on how various policyinterventions in irrigation (rehabilitated infrastructure, improved management andcombine of both) made an impact at micro-level (household level) particularly for the poor? It also assessed whether investment towards the rehabilitation of the existing
infrastructure is more effective or if the improvement of management is more effective,or if the combination of both is the most effective in terms of poverty reduction effects?Specific objectives of the study are; (i) to assess the impact of the public investmentsmade in the rehabilitation of the irrigation infrastructure and/or the improvement ofmanagement on rice yields, farm profits, cost of production, production uncertainties,and rural poverty under the selected irrigation schemes, and (ii) to compare the impactsand efficiency of irrigation investments among three scenarios viz., rehabilitatedinfrastructure, improved management and combine of both.
The study covered three irrigation schemes, viz., Song Chu scheme in Thanh Hoa province (North region), where a part of the infrastructure was rehabilitated and also
improved the management; An Tranch scheme in Quang Nam province (Central region) a part of its infrastructure was rehabilitated; and Dau Tieng scheme (Southern region)whose management was improved in a part of the scheme covering Ho Chi Minh province.
Both qualitative and quantitative assessment was carried out to analyze the basicresearch questions of the study. For quantitative assessment, in-depth household surveyswere conducted during the period from March to May 2003 in the selected study sites,and collected farm-level data on wide range of variables related to crop year 2002. Totalnumber of sample households surveyed was 1253; covering both rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or improved management, and non-rehabilitated and/or normal
management in the selected schemes. The sample study sites were selected in such waythat the socio-economic, biophysical and institutional features of both rehabilitated and/orimproved management areas and their neighboring areas (non-rehabilitated and/or normalmanagement) are closely similar except a difference in irrigation infrastructure and/ormanagement or both.
The baseline survey data was not available from the selected irrigation schemes,where interventions took place for rehabilitation of infrastructure and/or improvement ofmanagement. Thus determination of counterfactual information is a key concern in thestudy. A propensity score matching technique was applied as suggested by Ravallion
(2001) to form the closest comparison group from a sample of non-rehabilitatedinfrastructure and/or normal management area to the sample of the rehabilitatedinfrastructure and improved management area.
Findings from the qualitative assessment indicate that the interventions havesubstantially improved the availability of irrigation water, which in turn reduced production risks, improved farm income, reduced labor cost for pumping of water, andreduced poverty under selected schemes. Based on the qualitative assessment, hypotheses
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 42/133
42
tested by the quantitative analysis of survey data are that the interventions that took placeunder the selected schemes have significantly improved the availability of irrigationwater, which in turn increased rice yield, farm profits, reduced unit cost of production,reduced production uncertainties, improved household income, and reduced rural poverty
Results from Song Chu scheme indicate that the recent interventions in irrigation(rehabilitation of infrastructure and improvement of management) improved theavailability of irrigation water, which in turn had a positive effect on yield increases, costreduction, and income increases. On an average, there was a gain of about 18 per cent inrice yield, 22 per cent higher income, and 14 per cent higher food expenditure due to therehabilitated irrigation infrastructure and improved management under Song Chuirrigation scheme. These improvements led to reduction of poverty by about 12 percent inthe areas where interventions took place (rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement areas).
Under An Tranch scheme (Quang Nam province), the rehabilitation of a part of
irrigation infrastructure has enhanced the availability of irrigation water. There was 22 percent reduction in owned labor costs besides increasing rice yield by 13 percent, whichis a principal source of increased farm income under the rehabilitated area of An Tranchscheme.
Improved management under the Dau Tieng scheme in HCMC resulted in anincrease of total irrigated area in a year by 16 per cent, although net irrigated area wasnearly same in both HCMC and Tay Ninh. In addition, there was also considerableimprovement in the timely availability of irrigation in each season due to improvedmanagement of irrigation in HCMC. This led to increase in paddy yields by about 22 percent under improved management (HCMC) as compared to Tay Ninh (normal
management). Further the improved management also enhanced the productivity of non-rice crops, and bolter up the agricultural diversification. As study sites (Chu Chi)representing the improved management under Dau Tieng scheme are located closer toHCM City, these households have better access to many non-farm activities. Therefore,the higher income from non-crop and/or non-farm sources could not be attributedexclusively to the multiplier effects of improved management in HCMC. Therefore, asignificant increase in food consumption thereby reducing poverty in HCMC could notexclusively be attributed to the improved management. However, increased rice incomedue to improved management of irrigation could be one of the principal factors forincreased consumption expenditure on food, and poverty reduction in HCMC.
Results shows that farmers at the tail-ended canal system have been substantially benefited in terms of increases in paddy yields, rice income, total farm income, and percapita food expenditures due to the rehabilitated infrastructure and improvedmanagement under the Song Chu scheme, and due to improved management in HCMCunder Dau Tieng scheme.
An important policy issue assessed is how public investments made throughdifferent policy interventions in the selected irrigation schemes are effective in terms oftheir impact on various outcome indicators especially on poverty reduction. Increases in
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 43/133
43
percent terms of many outcome indicators such as rice yield, rice income, total householdincome and per capita food expenditure are significantly higher in HCMC wheremanagement of irrigation was improved under Dau Tieng irrigation scheme as comparedto other schemes. Rate of poverty reduction, as estimated based on food poverty line, wasalso much higher in HCMC under Dau Tieng scheme as compared to other schemes.
More gains in rice yields and income in absolute terms are contributed by hecombined effect of an improved irrigation infrastructure and management under the SongChu scheme as compared to by only rehabilitated infrastructure or improvedmanagement. Rehabilitated infrastructure under An Tranch scheme generated more gainsin terms of increases in total household income, food consumption, and even povertyreduction as compared to Song Chu scheme. As a whole, improved management ofirrigation (Dau Tieng scheme in HCMC) yielded more gains at household level thanother two interventions combined.
On an average, a one US Dollar investment in the rehabilitation of infrastructureand improvement of management (combined impact) under Song Chu scheme generated
US $ 1.31 worth of incremental farm output every year at the household level. The wholeinvestment made in Song Chu scheme was recovered in just a year’s time throughincremental farm output that could primarily be attributed to these interventions.However, it took 3-4 years to recover investments made in An Tranch (rehabilitatedinfrastructure) and Dau Tieng (improved management), the other two schemes The valueof the incremental farm output per one US $ invested in these schemes is about 0.30-0.35every year. A further average investment of US $13-14 per household resulted in anincrease of only one percent in per capita food consumption expenditure under Song Chuand Dau Tieng schemes, while the figure for the An Tranch scheme is moderately higher.The average amount invested through each intervention that brought one poor householdabove poverty line was lower in An Tranch scheme followed by Song Chu and then Dau
Tieng scheme. Note that a large number of non-poor households were also substantially benefited with increased farm income due to the interventions under the selectedschemes.
The estimated efficiency parameters for each intervention imply that public fundsinvested in the rehabilitation of infrastructure and improvement of management(combined effect) is more efficient in terms of additional output generated and on foodconsumption. However, rehabilitation of infrastructure seems to be a more effective policy intervention towards poverty alleviation, followed by the combination ofrehabilitated infrastructure and improved management. Therefore, the rehabilitation ofthe existing irrigation systems ought to be given priority followed by improvements of its
management to maximize the return farm incomes, and reduce poverty more efficiently.
Policy options
• Rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure ought to be given a top priority for public spending in order to improve rural incomes especially for those farmerswho live at the tail-ended canal system.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 44/133
44
• Findings suggest that merely investing in management does not yield more gainsin terms of poverty reduction unless irrigation infrastructure is rehabilitated. Thus,improvement of management after rehabilitation is to be given priority to ensurethat tail-ended farmers would receive irrigation water from the rehabilitatedirrigation system.
References
Barker R, Vu Kopen, and T. Shah (200). A global perspective on water scarcity, and poverty: Achievements and challenges for resources management . Colambo:International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka.
Bhattarai, M, R. Shakthivadivel and Intizar Hussain (2002). Irrigation impacts on incomeinequality and poverty alleviation: Policy issues and options for improvedmanagement of irrigation systems. Working paper 39, Colambo: InternationalWater Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka.
Chambers, R (1988). Managing canal irrigation: Practical analysis from South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt.Ltd.
Chitale, M.A. (1994). Irrigation for poverty alleviation. Water resources development, Vol. 10(4): 383-391
GSO-General Statistical Office (2002). Statistical Data of Vietnam Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries-1975-2000, Hanoi: General Statistical Office, Socialist Republic ofVietnam
Janaiah, Aldas, A.G. Agarwal and M. Hossain (2000). Poverty and IncomeDistribution in the Irrigated and Rainfed Ecosystems: Insights from VillageStudies in Chattissgarh, India. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35 (52).
Mellor, J.W (2001) Irrigation agriculture and poverty reduction: General relations andspecific needs. Working paper presented at the Regional Workshop on Pro-Poor Intervention Strategies in Irrigated Agriculture in Asia. International WaterManagement Institute (IWMI), Colambo, Sri Lanka, August 9-10 2001.
Ravallion, M (2001). The mystery of vanishing benefits: An introduction to impactevaluation. The World Bank Economic Review, Vol 15 (1): 115-140.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2002). The Comprehensive Poverty Reduction andGrowth Strategy (CPRGS), Hanoi, May 2002.
Thakur, Jahawar, M.L. Bose, M. Hossain and Aldas Janaiah (2000). Rural IncomeDistribution and Poverty in Bihar, India: Insights from Village Studies. Economicand Political Weekly, Vol. 35 (52)
Ut, Tran Thi, M. Hossain and Aldas Janaiah (2000). Impact of Technology and
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 45/133
45
Infrastructure on Poverty and Income Distribution in Rural Vietnam. Economicand Political Weekly, Vol. 35 (52).
VDR-Vietnam Development Report (2004). Vietnam Development Report 2004,Poverty. Joint Donor Report to the Vietnam Consultative Group Meeting, Hanoi,December 2-3, 2003.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 46/133
46
Table 1.1. Rotated matrix among inter-related variable determining poverty in Vietnam(results of factor analysis)
ComponentVariable
1 2 3 4 5
Per capita GDP -0.110 0.107 -.249 0.819 -0.082Per capita Ag. GDP -0.03226 0.368 0.755 0.215 -0.141
% Ag. GDP -0.142 0.042 0.766 -0.420 0.136% Agri.labor to rural
population-0.0232 -0.402 0.643 -0.241 0.234
Number of irrigated pumps 0.070 0.935 .166 0.022 0.0008 No. of pumps per 000’ ha
of planted area0.0010 0.921 -0.044 0.181 -0.064
% Irrigated area 0.764 0.0713 -0.060 -0.171 0.240% Paddy irr. Area to total
irr. Area0.027 -0.197 0.154 0.136 0.826
Cropping intensity for rice 0.129 0.132 -0.048 -0.286 0.732
Rice yield 0.848 -0.075 .128 0.0126 0.151
Maize yield 0.305 0.141 0.457 0.391 -0.441Cassava yield -0.134 0.079 0.041 0.664 -0.0112
Budget for irrigation 0.749 0.026 -0.178 -0.156 -0.222Poverty rate -0.501 -0.266 0.036 -0.442 0.295
% Variance explained 16.3 15.7 13.9 13.8 12.4
Table 2.1: Sample size in the selected irrigation schemes
Number of sample households/ Irrigation schemeType of intervention
/study site Song Chu An Tranch Dau Tieng
1 a) Rehabilitatedinfrastructure & improvedmanagement
147
b) Non- Rehabilitated & Non-improved/typicalmanagement
200
2 a) Rehabilitatedinfrastructure
161
b) Non-Rehabilitatedinfrastructure
287
3 a) Improvedinfrastructure management
157
b) Non-improved/typicalinfrastructure management
302
Total 347 448 459
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 47/133
47
Table 2.2: Sampling design, Thanh Hoa (No. of sample households)
District CommunesRehabilitatedand improvedmanagement
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
Quang xuong Quang vinh 200
(100)
Thieu hoa Thieu chinh 54
(36.7)
Thieu hoa 46
(31.3)
Thieu toan 47
(32.0)
Total147
(100)200
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
Table 2.3: Name of the village clusters covered, Thanh Hoa
Name of village clusters
District Communes Rehabilitated andimproved
management
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
Quang xuong Quang vinh HaiMinhQuangThang PhuThanhThuongTien Khang
Thieu hoa Thieu chinh Dan Chinh
Dan TaiDan Tien
Thieu hoa Thai Duong
Thieu toan Toan HangToan PhucToan Ty
Number of village clusters 7 7
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 48/133
48
Table 2.4: Sampling design, Quang Nam (No of households)
District Commune Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
DienBan DienAn 111 ---
(68.9)DienNam 50 ---
(31.1)
Dienngoc --- 90
(31.4)
DienThang ---- 197
(68.6)
Total161
(100)287
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
Table 2.5: Name of the village clusters covered in Quang Nam
District Commune Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
DienBan DienAn PhongnhatPhongnhi
---
DienNam Thon2Thon8Thon8AThon8B
---
Dienngoc ---- Nganha Ngantrung
DienThang ---- ThanhquytThanhquyt4Viemtay
Number of village clusters 6 5
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 49/133
49
Table 2.6. Sampling design, HCMC/Tay Ninh (No of households)
District CommuneImproved
infrastructuremanagement
Non-improvedinfrastructuremanagement
Cu chi Phuoc hiep 51 ---
(32.5)
Phuoc thanh 51 ---
(32.5)
Trung lapthuong
55
(35.0) ---
Duong minh chau Loc ninh --- 101
(33.4)
Trang bang Don thuan --- 100
(33.1)
Loc hung --- 101(33.5)
Total157
(100)
302
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
Table 2.7: Name of the village clusters covered, HCMC/Tay Ninh
District CommuneImproved
infrastructuremanagement
Non-improvedinfrastructuremanagement
Cu chiPhuoc hiep Trung Vi
Trungvie
---
Phuoc thanh Bau Trau
Mit Nai
Vuon Bau
Vuon Tra
---
Trung lap
thuong
Donglon
RangDuong minh chau Loc ninh --- Loc Hiep
Trang bang Don thuan Thuanloi
Loc hung Loc Chan
Loc Tan
Number of village clusters 8 4
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 50/133
50
Table 2.8: Number of sample households retained for final analysis after propensityscore matching, Than Hoa.
District CommunesRehabilitatedand improved
management
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
Quang xuong Quang vinh 111
(100)
Thieu hoa Thieu chinh 33
(30.3)
Thieu hoa 42
(38.5)
Thieu toan 34
(31.2)
Total109
(100)111
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
Table 2.9: Number of sample households retained for final analysis after propensity scorematching in Quang Nam
District Commune Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
DienBan DienAn 54
(60.0)DienNam 36
(40.0)
Dienngoc 44
(43.6)
DienThang 57
(56.4)
Total90
(100)101
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 51/133
51
Table 2.10: Number of sample households retained for final analysis after propensityscore matching, HCMC/Tay Ninh
District Commune
Improvedinfrastructure
andmanagement
Non-improvedinfrastructure and
management
Cu chi Phuoc hiep 35
(36.5)
Phuoc thanh 21
(21.9)
Trung lap thuong 40
(41.7)
Duong minh chau Loc ninh 24
(23.8)
Trang bang Don thuan 29
(28.7)
Loc hung 48(47.6)
Total96
(100)
101
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 52/133
52
Table 4.1: Findings from the qualitative assessment on farmers’ perceptions of impacts ofrecent interventions in the selected irrigation schemes (outcomes of FGDs)
Song Chu scheme An Tranch scheme Dau Tieng schemeVariables
RI & IM NRI&NM RI NRI IM NM
Availability of
irrigation water
Improved &
reliable
Unreliable Improved
& reliable
Unreliable Improved
& reliable
Unreliable
Localinstitutions forwater mangt.
WUAs Absent Absent Absent Strong
(Onerepresentative/
village
Weak(Irrigationgroup)
Croppingintensity (%)
180-200 160-180 200-210 200 250-280 230-260
Rice yield in
season-1 (t/ha)
6.5-7.0 6.0-6.5 6.5-7.0 5.0-6.0 4.5-5.0 3.5-4.0
Rice yield inseason-2 (t.ha)
6.5-7.0 5.0-5.5 6.0-6.5 5.0-6.0 4.5-5.0 3.5-4.0
Cost of rice production(VND 000’/ton)
480-550 650-750 700-750 700-800 750-800 900-1000
Marketablesurplus of rice(%)
50-55 10-15 25-30 10-15 35-40 30-35
Yield variability Less More Reduced High Less More
Drought effect Low Sever Less Severe Minimum Moderate
Family laboravailable fornon-farmactivities
More Less More Less More Less
Drudgery onwomen
Minimized Heavy Minimized
Heavy Minimized
Heavy
Child care Improved Affected No effect No effect No change No change
Conflicts
among farmersfor water
Reduced Many Absent Occasiona
l
Absent Occasional
Note: RI & IM=Rehabilitated infrastructure & improved management; NRI & NM = Non-rehabilitated infrastructure & normal management; RI= Rehabilitated infrastructure; NRI=non-rehabilitated infrastructure; IM=improved management; NM= Normalmanagement.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 53/133
53
Table 4. 2. Location of selected sample households along main canal , Thanh Hoa
(No of households)
Location of farmsRehabilitatedand improvedmanagement
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
managementHead canal 34 49
(31.2) (44.1)
Mid canal 33 37
(30.3) (33.3)
End canal 42 25
(38.5) (22.5)
Total109
(100)111
(100)
Figures in parentheses are percentage to total
Table 4.3 Distribution (%) of sample households by soil quality in Thanh Hoa
Rehabilitatedand
improvedmanagement
Non-rehabilitated
and typicalmanagement
Soil quality
(N=109) (N=111)
1 2.70
2 0.92 6.31
3 13.76 12.61
4 37.61 36.04
5 36.70 35.14
6 11.01 7.21Total 100 100
Note: Soil quality= 1 for the best quality, 2 for the good quality..…… 6 for the lowestquality
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 54/133
54
Table 4.4: Basic features of sample households in Thanh Hoa
Variables
Rehabilitated and
improved
management
Non-rehabilitate
d andtypical
management
%Difference
t-value
Age (years) 49.09 46.28 6.1 1.2Education (schoolingyears)
7.82 6.46 21.0 3.2 ***
Family size (nos.) 4.92 5.00 -1.7 -0.3 Number of familylabour
3.14 3.20 -1.9 0.4
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
Table 4.5: Location of sample households along with canal in Quang Nam
(Number of households)
Location of farms Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
Head canal 34 49
(31.2) (44.1)Mid canal 33 37
(30.3) (33.3)
End canal 42 25
(38.5) (22.5)
Total90
(100)101
(100)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 55/133
55
Table 4.6: Distribution (%) of sample households by soil quality in Quang Nam
Soil quality Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
1 0.99
2 1.11 0.99
3 4.95
4 23.33 17.82
5 37.78 36.63
6 37.78 38.61
Total 100 100
Note: Soil quality= 1 for the best quality, 2 for the good quality..…… 6 for the lowestquality
Table 4.7: Basic features of sample households in Quang Nam
VariablesRehabilitat
ed
Non-rehabilitate
d
%Difference
t test
Age (years) 57.52 55.83 3.0 -0.1Education (schoolingyears)
5.58 5.61 -0.6 -0.1
Family size (nos.) 4.90 4.68 4.6 0.2 Number of familylabour
3.70 3.49 6.2 0.0
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 56/133
56
Table 4,8: Location of sample households along with canal , HCMC/Tay Ninh
(No. of households)
Location of farms
Improvedinfrastructure
and
management
Non-improved
infrastructure
andmanagement
Head canal 40 24
(41.7) (23.8)
Mid canal 21 29
(21.9) (28.7)
End canal 35 48
(36.4) (47.5)
Total 96
(100)
101
(100)Figures in parenthesis are percentages to total
Table 4.9: Distribution (%) of sample households by soil quality in HCM<C/Tay Ninh
Soil quality
Improved
infrastructureand
management
Non-improvedinfrastructureand management
1 1.04 7.92
2 5.21 46.53
3 37.50 45.54
4 51.04
5 4.17
6 1.04
Total 100 100
Note: Soil quality= 1 for the best quality, 2 for the good quality..…… 6 for the lowestquality
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 57/133
57
Table 4.10: Basic features of sample households in HCMC/Tay Ninh
Variables
Improvedinfrastructure
andmanagement
Non-improved
infrastructur
e andmanagement
%Differenc
e
t value
Age (years) 50.47 47.40 6.5 2.2 **Education (schoolingyears)
6.09 4.97 22.6 1.9*
Family size (nos.) 4.60 4.49 2.7 1.0 Number of familylabour
3.22 2.76 16.5 1.4 *
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
Table 4.11: Land holding pattern of sample households in Thanh Hoa
(Avg sq.mtrs)
Particulars
Rehabilitated and
improvedmanageme
nt
Non-rehabilitate
d andtypical
manageme
nt
%
Differencet value
No. of parcels 4.75 3.90 21.8 1.0
Land area owned 2578 1356 90.1 4.0***
Land area leased-in 318 7 4602.7 -1.4*
Land area leased-out 52 2 2308.2 1.3
Net cultivated area 2844 1361 109.0 4.2***
Net irrigated area 2649 1082 144.7 4.9***
Net irrigated area as % of netcultivated area
93 80 16.3 0.7
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 58/133
58
Table 4.12: Status of irrigation availability and drainage of sample households, hanh Hoa
(Area in sq.meters)
VariablesRehabilitatedand improvedmanagement
Non-rehabilitateand typical
management
%
Differencet value
Net irrigated area 2649 1082 144.7 4.9***
Irrigation availability
- in season 1 1828 669 173.3 5.0***
(69.0) (61.8)
- in season 2 1835 682 168.8 4.7***
(69.3) (63.0)
- in season 3 1285 588 118.7 2.7**
(48.5) (54.3)
- all seasons 4948 1939 155.2 4.4***
(186.8) (179.2)
Irrigation availability at righttime
- in season 1 1820 732 148.6 5.1***
(68.7) (67.6)
- in season 2 1862 741 151.4 5.1***
(70.3) (68.4)
- in season 3 1295 466 177.7 3.5*** (48.9) (43.1)
- all seasons 4977 1939 156.7 4.8***
(187.9) (179.1)
Covered with drainage
- in season 1 1942 935 107.7 4.3***
(73.3) (86.4)
- in season 2 1900 928 104.6 4.2***
(71.7) (85.8)
- in season 3 1339 482 177.5 3.6***
(50.5) (44.6)
- all seasons 5180 2346 120.8 4.2***
(195.6) (216.7)
Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages to net irrigated are.; ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5%and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 59/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 60/133
60
Table 4.15: Cost-return profile for cultivation for rice in Thanh Hoa
(Sum of all seasons-total planted area in a year)
(VND 000’ per planted area/year)
Particulars
Rehabilitated
and improvedmanagement
Non-
rehabilitatedand typicalmanagement
%Difference t value
Area planted (M 2) 4064 1886115.5
5.1***
Costs
Own labour cost 1068 68256.7
3.1***
Purchased input cost 1354 74681.6
4.0***
Total cost 2422 142769.7
4.1**
* Returns
Paddy output (kg) 2764 1094152.7
11.9***
Paddy price received (000VND/kg)
1.71 1.76-2.9
-0.9
Gross value of rice production 4697 1905146.6
6.9***
Net return 2275 477376.6
5.8***
Farm operating surplus 3343 1159188.5
6.6**
*Utilization-% rice output
Consumed by familya 52.3 65.1-19.7
4.1***
Sold in the market 47.7 34.9166.7
5.0***
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively
a=Including saved seed.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 61/133
61
Table 4.16: Cost-return profile for cultivation for rice in Thanh Hoa
(Average of all seasons per hectare / season)
(VND 000’/ha)
Particulars
Rehabilitated
and improvedmanagement
Non-
rehabilitatedand typicalmanagement
%Difference t value
Costs
Own labour cost 2628 3614 -27.3 0.1Purchased input cost 3332 3955 -15.7 -1.5*Total cost 5960 7569 -21.3 -0.7 Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 6.9 5.8 19.0 14.6***
Paddy price received (000VND/kg)
1.71 1.76 -2.9 -0.9
Gross value of rice production 11581 10104 14.6 9.8 *** Net return 5621 2535 121.7 6.4***Farm operating surplus 8249 6150 34.1 9.5***Unit cost of rice production000`VND/ton)
491 688 -28.6 -3.2***
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 62/133
62
Table 4.17: Input cost of rice cultivation in Thanh Hoa
(average of all seasons-per ha/season)
('000 VND/ha)
ParticularsRehabilitated and
improvedmanagement
Non-
rehabilitatedand typical
management
%Difference
t value
Seed 261.4 441.9 -40.8 -3.9***
Fertilizers
- Urea 557.0 613.1 -9.2 -0.1
- Phosphorous 247.6 281.3 -12.0 1.0
- Potassium 230.7 201.4 14.5 0.8
- Complex 217.7 183.5 18.7 0.8
Total fertilizer cost1252.9 1279.2
-2.1 -0.6Manure 919.2 787.3 16.8 0.7
Insecticides 146.8 241.7 -39.3 2.0**
Herbicides 94.0 55.0 71.0 -2.0**
Irrigation fee 288.9 229.3 26.0 -4.6***
Irrigation cost 125.0 785.4 -84.1 3.5***
Other input cost 0.0 0.0
Hired labour 243.8 135.0 80.6 0.4
Purchase input cost 3332.0 3954.8 -15.7 2.1**
Own labour 2627.9 3614.2 -27.3 0.1
Total cost 5959.9 7569.0 -21.3 3.2***
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 63/133
63
Table 4.18: Cost-return profile for non-rice crops in Thanh Hoa
(per total non-rice cropped area in a year)
(000’ VND)
Particulars
Rehabilitated and
improvedmanageme
nt
Non-rehabilitat
ed andtypical
management
%Difference
t value
Cultivated land to non-rice crops (m2) 476.0 417.3 14.1 1.7*
Total cost 140.6 133.1 5.6 1.1
Output value 328.2 442.2 -25.8 -0.7
Net profit 187.6 309.2 -39.3 -0.3
Purchase cost per ha. 1748.0 1305.3 33.9 0.5
Output per ha 3944.5 4490.9 -12.2 0.4
Farm-operating surplus per ha. 2196.5 3185.5 -31.1 -1.2
Utilization-% of output value
Consumed by family 87 30 190 2.3**
Sold in the market 13 70 -81 -2.7**
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
Table 4.19: Coefficient of variation (%) of paddy yield in Thanh Hoa
SeasonRehabilitatedand improvedmanagement
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
%
Difference
Season 1 23.5 31.8 -26.0
Season 2 25.2 35.4 -28.9
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 64/133
64
Table 4.20: Percent of sample households affected by natural calamities in Thanh Hoa
Calamity
Rehabilitated and
improvedmanageme
nt
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
%
Differencet value
Drought 0.00 10.81 -100.0 -4.1***
Flood 1.83 10.81 -83.0 -4.1***
Table 4.21: Structure of household income of the sample farmers in Thanh Hoa
('000 VND/year)
Particulars
Rehabilitated and
improvedmanagemen
t
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
%Difference
t value
Rice income 3343.3 1159.0 188.5 6.6***
Non-rice income 187.6 309.2 -39.3 0.3
Crop income 3531.0 1468.1 140.5 6.1***
Non-crop income a 2742.6 1123.7 144.1 1.1
Agricultural income 6273.6 2591.8 142.1 4.4***
Agriculture labour wage 495.0 419.8 17.9 1.5*
Other non-farm income 4372.6 5047.2 -13.4 -1.6*
Non-farm self employment 844.1 1766.2 -52.2 -4.2***
Non-farm income 5711.8 7233.2 -21.0 -2.2***
Total household income 11985.3 9825.0 22.0 2.4**
Per capita income 2437.3 1965.0 24.0 2.3**a includes income from livestock and fisheries
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 65/133
65
Table 4.22: Per capita consumption expenditure on food items in Thanh Hoa
(per capita in -000 VND)
Particulars
Rehabilitated and
improvedmanageme
nt
Non-rehabilitat
ed andtypical
management
%Difference t value
Rice 485.3 504.7 -3.8 -0.3
Other cereals and staple food 41.5 7.3 468.2 2.3**
Meet, fish, shrimp 562.8 590.8 -4.7 -1.2
Fruits and vegetables 210.9 143.1 47.4 1.5*
Milk and milk products 78.4 23.3 236.9 2.1**
Beer and industrial beverages 4.5 4.7 -3.1 -1.2
Coffee, tea, softdrinks, mineral water 125.1 54.8 128.4 1.6*Eating and drinking outside home 0.0 0.0 -- --
Total per capita food expenditure 1508.4 1328.6 13.5 2.4**
Per household food expenditure 7151.9 6425.1 11.3 2.6**
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
Table 4.23: Estimated incidence of poverty among sample households in Thanh Hoa
(%of total households)
Particulars
Rehabilitated and
improvedmanagemen
t
Non-rehabilitatedand typical
management
%Difference
t value
Food povertya39 45 -12.4 -2.6**
Overall poverty based on ownassessment b 45 44 3.9 0.5
‘a’ estimated based on survey data 2003
‘b’ estimated based on official wealth ranking of households at commune level
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 66/133
66
Table 4.24: Land holding pattern of sample households in Quang Nam
(Avg sq.mtrs)
Particulars Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
%
Differencet value
No. of parcels 3.38 2.96 14.1 -3.2***
Land area owned 1940 1602 21.2 2.7***
Land area leased-in 52 80 -35.2 1.0
Land area leased-out 57
Net cultivated area 1934 1682 15.0 2.5**
Net irrigated area 1845 1615 14.2 2.3**
Net irrigated area as % ofnet cultivated area
95 96 -1.1 -0.2
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance
respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 67/133
67
Table 4.25: Status of irrigation availability and drainage of sample households in Quang Nam
(Area in sq. meters)
Variables Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
%
Differen
ce
t value
Net irrigated area 1845 1615 14.2 2.3** Irrigation availability
- in season 1 1388 1144 21.3 2.2**(75.2) (70.8)
- in season 2 1373 1130 21.5 1.9*(74.4) (70.0)
- in season 3 17 12 42.1 1.4*(0.9) (0.7)
- all seasons 2778 2286 21.5 2.1**(150.6) (141.5)
Irrigation availability at righttime
- in season 1 1401 1169 19.8 2.2**(75.9) (72.4)
- in season 2 1387 1138 21.9 1.9*(75.2) (70.5)
- in season 3 21 12 74.7 1.4*(1.1) (0.7)
- all seasons 2809 2319 21.1 2.1**(152.3) (143.6)
Covered with drainage
- in season 1 1348 1192 13.1 1.9*(73.1) (73.8)
- in season 2 1322 1161 13.8 1.4*(71.7) (71.9)
- in season 3 33 14 138.8 1.2(1.8) (0.9)
- all seasons 2703 2367 14.2 1.8*(146.5) (146.6)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to net irrigated area
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 68/133
68
Table 4.26: Distribution of irrigated area of sample households in Quang Nam
(Avg sq.mtrs)
ParticularsRehabilitat
ed
Non-rehabilitat
ed
%
Differencet value
Net irrigated area 1845 1615 14.2 2.3**
962 399 140.9 3.2***Irrigated area under head of maincanal (52.2) (24.7)
143 165 -13.4 1.2Irrigated area under mid of main canal
(7.7) (10.2)740 1051 -29.6 -1.8*
Irrigated area under end of main canal(40.1) (65.1)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to net irrigated area
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance
respectively.
Table 4.27: Cropping intensity of sample households in Quang Nam
(Area in sq.meters)
ParticularsRehabilitat
ed Non-
rehabilitated
%
Difference
t test
Gross cultivated area 3124 2762 13.1 1.5*
Net cultivated area 1934 1682 15.0 2.5**
Gross rice area 3082 2700 14.1 1.4*
Gross non-rice rea 42 61 -31.4 -1.5*
Cropping intensity-farm as awhole
1.61 1.64 -1.8 -0.6**
Cropping intensity for rice 2.01 2.00 0.6 0.4
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 69/133
69
Table 4.28: Cost-return profile for the cultivation of rice in Quang Nam
(Sumof all seasons-per planted area in a year )
(VN D 000’ per planted area in a year)
Particulars
Rehabilit
ated
Non-
rehabilitated
%
Difference t value
Area planted (M 2) 3082 2700 14.1 1.5*CostsOwn labour cost 819 921 -11.0 -0.1Purchased input cost 1529 1181 29.4 2.3*Total cost 2349 2102 11.7 1.2 Returns
Paddy output (Kg) 1978 1532 23.1 2.2**
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.79 1.73 3.3 0.8Gross value of rice production 3541 2650 33.6 3.9***
Net return 1192 548 117.4 2.9***Farm operating surplus 2012 1469 36.9 2.9***Utilization-% of rice outputConsumed by familya 77 85 -9.4 2.3**Sold in the market 23 15 98.3 2.5** Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. a Included saved seed
Table 4.29: Cost-return profile for the cultivation of rice in Quang Nam
(average of all seasons-per hectare/season)
( VND 000’ per ha. )
ParticularsRehabili
tated
Non-rehabilitat
ed
%Differen
cet value
Costs
Own labour cost 2659 3409 -22.0 -1.8*Purchased input cost 4963 4376 13.4 0.1Total cost 7621 7785 -2.1 -1.2 Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 6.4 5.7 13.3 1.7*
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.79 1.73 3.3 0.8Gross value of rice production 11493 9816 17.1 1.8* Net return 3872 2031 90.7 2.3**Farm operating surplus 6530 5440 20.0 2.1**Unit cost of rice production (000VND/ton)
775 767 1.0 -1.5*
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 70/133
70
Table 4.30: Input costs of rice cultivation in Quang Nam
(average of all seasons-per hectare/season)
('000 VND/ha)
Particulars Rehabilitated Non-rehabilitated
%
Difference
t value
Seed 509.8 492.5 3.5 0.6
Fertilizers
- Urea 750.5 568.5 32.0 1.5*
- Phosphorous 206.8 130.6 58.3 0.3
- Potassium 169.1 170.5 -0.8 -0.8
- Complex 645.7 634.9 1.7 0.1
Total fertilizer cost 1772.1 1504.5 91.2 1.9*
Manure 522.9 291.8 79.2 1.2
Insecticides 581.6 378.9 53.5 1.9
Herbicides 264.8 247.5 7.0 -0.8
Irrigation fee 732.9 748.3 -2.1 -0.0
Irrigation cost 112.0 16.8 568.6 4.2***
Other input cost 0.0 3.5 --- ---
Hired labour 466.8 691.8 -32.5 1.2
Purchase input cost 4962.9 4375.7 13.4 1.6*
Own labour 2658.5 3409.2 -22.0 -1.8*
Total cost 7621.4 7784.9 -2.1 -0.2
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 71/133
71
Table 4.31: Cost-return profile for the cultivation of non-rice crops in Quang Nam
(per planted area in a year)
(`000 VND)
ParticularsRehabilitat
ed
Non-rehabilitat
ed
%Differen
cet value
Area planted to non-rice crops (m2) 42.2 61.5 -31.4 -1.5*
Total cost 23.9 16.4 45.7 1.4*
Output 96.5 52.1 85.3 1.3
Net profit 72.6 35.7 103.5 1.8*
Purchase cost per ha. 282.4 274.9 2.8 0.9
Output value per ha. 1076.6 789.8 36.3 0.8
Farm generating surplus per ha. 794.1 514.9 54.2
Utilization-% of output value
Consumed by family 9 24 -63 -0.7
Sold in the market (000 VND) 91 76 33 1.9*
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
Table 4.32: Coefficient of variation (%) of paddy yield in Quang Nam
Season Rehabilitated Non-
rehabilitated
%
Difference
Season 1 38.2 40.7 -6.3***
Season 2 43.4 41.8 3.8***
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance
respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 72/133
72
Table 4.33: Percent of sample households affected by natural calamities in Quang Nam
CalamityRehabilitat
ed Non-
rehabilitated
%
Difference
t value
Drought 97.78 100.00 -2.2 -1.4 *Flood 86.67 92.08 -5.9 -1.1
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
Table 4.34: Structure of household income of the sample farmers in Quang Nam
('000 VND/year)
ParticularsRehabilitate
d Non-
rehabilitated
%Differen
cet value
Rice income 2011.6 1469.0 36.9 2.9***
Non-rice income 72.6 35.7 103.5 1.3
Crop income 2084.2 1504.7 38.5 3.0***
Non-crop income * 1919.9 843.1 127.7 2.8***
Agricultural income 4004.1 2347.7 70.6 3.8***
Agriculture labour wage 298.1 151.5 96.8 1.7*Other non-farm income 4572.0 4560.0 0.3 -0.3
Non-farm self employment 874.9 807.1 8.4 0.3
Non-farm income 5745.0 5518.7 4.1 0.1
Total household income 9749.1 7866.4 23.9 1.8*
Per capita income 1989.6 1679.7 18.4 1.6*
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 73/133
73
Table 4.35: Per capita consumption expenditure of sample households on food items inQuang Nam
(Per capita /annum in '000 VND)
ParticularsRehabilitat
ed
Non-rehabilitat
ed
%Differen
cet value
Rice 453.6 421.8 7.5 1.0
Other cereals and staple food 10.7 1.5 632.0 0.7
Meet, fish, shrimp 756.1 623.3 21.3 2.3**
Fruits and vegetables 193.7 142.5 35.9 1.5*
Milk and milk products 28.8 19.5 48.0 0.3
Beer and industrial beverages 15.7 4.4 254.0 1.6*
Coffee, tea, softdrinks, mineral water 91.2 70.2 29.8 1.4*
Eating and drinking outside home 0.0 0.0
Total per capita food expenditure 1549.8 1283.2 20.8 2.1**
Per household food expenditure 7430.2 5806.7 28.0 1.9*
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
Table 4.36: Estimated incidence of poverty among sample households in quang nam (per
cent of total households)
ParticularsRehabilitat
ed
Non-rehabilitat
ed
%Differen
cet test
Food povertya 33 53 -37.7 -2.6**
Overall poverty based on ownassessment b
43 47 -8.0 -2.8**
‘a’ estimated based on survey data 2003
‘b’ estimated based on official wealth ranking of households at commune level
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 74/133
74
Table 4.37: Land holding pattern of sample households in HCMC/Tay Ninh
(sq metres)
ParticularsImproved
infrastructure
management
Typicalinfrastructure
management
%
Differenc
e
t value
No. of parcels 2.00 1.83 9.2 0.2
Land area owned 5872 6211 -5.5 -1.2
Land area leased-in 499 168 196.4 1.3
Land area leased-out 20 0 --- 0.1
Net cultivated area 6351 6379 -0.4 -1.4*
Net irrigated area 6156 5984 2.9 1.5*
Net irrigated area as % of netcultivated area
97 94 3.2 0.7
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 75/133
75
Table 4.38: Status of irrigation availability and drainage of sample households inHCMC/Tay Ninh
(Area in sq.meters)
VariablesImproved
infrastructure
management
Typicalinfrastructure
management
%
Differen
ce
t value
Net irrigated area (m2) 6156 5984 2.9 1.5* Irrigation availability
- in season 1 3873 3109 24.6 4.1*** (62.9) (52.0)
- in season 2 3830 3174 20.7 3.7*** (62.2) (53.0)
- in season 3 3986 3821 4.3 0.6(64.7) (63.8)
- all seasons 11688 10103 15.7 2.9**(189.9) (168.8)
Irrigation availability atright time
- in season 1 4181 3800 10.0 2.7**(67.9) (63.5)
- in season 2 4058 3818 6.3 2.4**(65.9) (63.8)
- in season 3 4193 4026 4.2 0.9(68.1) (67.3)
- all seasons 12433 11644 6.8 2.2**(202.0) (194.6)
Covered with drainage
- in season 1 4130 4311 -4.2 1.4*(67.1) (72.0)
- in season 2 4085 4113 -0.7 1.6*(66.4) (68.7)
- in season 3 4326 3993 8.3 1.3(70.3) (66.7)
- all seasons 12541 12417 1.0 1.5*(203.7) (207.5)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to net irrigated area
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 76/133
76
Table 4.39: Distribution of irrigated area of sample households in HCMC/Tay Ninh
(sq.meters)
ParticularsImproved
infrastructuremanagement
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%
Differencet value
Net irrigated area 6156 5984 2.9 1.5*
2636 1719 53.4 3.3***Irrigated area under head of maincanal (42.8) (28.7)
1566 1852 -15.4 -0.9
Irrigated area under mid of maincanal
(25.4) (31.0)1953 2413 -19.1 -
1.7*
Irrigated area under end of maincanal
(31.7) (40.3)
Figures in parenthesis are percentages to net irrigated area
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
Table 4.40: Cropping intensity in HCMC/Tay Ninh
(Area in sq.meters)
Particulars
Improvedinfrastructu
remanageme
nt
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%
Difference
T value
Gross cultivated area 15945 13672 16.6 3.2**
Net cultivated area 6351 6379 -0.4 1.4*
Gross rice area 12506 9591 30.4 4.0***
Gross non-rice area 3439 4081 -15.7 1.8*
Cropping Intensity-farm as awhole
2.51 2.14 17.1 1.9*
Cropping intensity for rice 2.51 2.53 -0.8 0.87
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 77/133
77
Table 4.41: Cost-return profile for cultivation of rice in HCMC/Tay Ninh
(Sum of all seasons-per planted area in a year)
(VND 000’ per planted area in a year)
Particulars
Improve
dinfrastructure
management
Typical
infrastructure
management
%Differenc
et value
Area planted (M 2) 12506 9591 30.4 4.0***CostsOwn labour cost 1636 1159 41.1 1.1Purchased input cost 4553 3156 44.3 3.2**Total cost 6189 4315 43.4 3.1** Returns
Paddy output (Kg) 5084 3246 56.6 7.2***Received (000 VND/kg) 1.40 1.27 10.2 1.6*Gross value of rice production 7140 4127 73.0 6.5*** Net return (000 VND) 951 -189 -604.1 2.1*Farm operating surplus (000VND) 2587 971 166.5 2.4**Utilization-% of rice outputConsumed by familya 39 40 -2.5 1.0Sold in the market 61 60 1.7 1.2
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
a = Included saved seed
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 78/133
78
Table 4.42: Cost-return profile for cultivation for rice in HCMC/Tay Ninh
(Average of all seasons-per ha/season)
(VND 000’ per ha/season)
Particulars
Improvedinfrastructur
emanagemen
t
Typicalinfrastructur
emanagemen
t
%Differen
cet value
Costs
Own labour cost 1308 1209 8.2 -2.5**Purchased input cost 3641 3291 10.6 0.2Total cost 4948 4499 10.0 0.4 Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 4.1 3.4 20.1 5.3***Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.53 1.53 -0.2 -0.7Gross value of rice production 6225 5195 19.8 5.3*** Net return 1277 695 83.6 2.3**Farm operating surplus 2585 1904 35.8 2.0**Unit cost of rice production (000VND /ton)
895 972 -7.9 -2.6**
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 79/133
79
Table 4.43: Input costs of rice cultivation in HCMC/Tay
(Average of all seasons-per ha/season)
('000 VND / ha)
Particulars Improvedinfrastructuremanagement
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%Difference
t value
Seed 345.5 367.5 -6.0 -0.5
Fertilizers
- Urea 527.8 467.5 12.9 0.8
- Phosphorous 83.4 104.9 -20.6 -1.3
- Potassium 50.0 123.0 -59.4 1.4*
- Complex 900.2 575.8 56.3 0.5
Total fertilizer cost 1561.3 1271.3 -10.7 1.2
Manure 211.0 67.3 213.7 1.9*
Insecticides 460.4 292.3 57.5 1.0
Herbicides 209.5 239.5 -12.5 -1.2
Irrigation fee 110.3 196.3 -43.8 -3.1***
Irrigation cost 21.8 103.4 -78.9 -1.8*
Other input cost 3.1 0.0
Hired labour 717.7 753.2 -4.7 -1.3
Purchase input cost 3640.5 3290.7 10.6 0.2
Own labour 1307.9 1208.6 8.2 2.5**
Total cost 4948.4 4499.3 10.0 0.4
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 80/133
80
Table 4.44: Cost-return profile for non-rice crops in HCMC/Tay Ninh
(per planted area in a year)
(000’ VND)
ParticularsImproved
infrastructuremanagement
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%Differenc
et value
Area planted to non-rice crops(m2)
3439 4081 -15.7 -1.8*
Total cost 2081 2002 4.0 1.0
Output value 6063 4757 27.4 1.1
Net profit 3982 2755 44.5 1.9*
Purchase input cost per ha. 4423 3285 34.7 1.5*
Output value per ha. 12670 7607 66.6 1.1
Farm operating surplus per ha. 8247 4322
Utilization-% of output value
Consumed by family 2.3 4.1 -44 -1.5*
Sold in the market (000 VND) 97.7 95.9 1.9 -0.9
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
Table 4.45: Coefficient of variation (%) of paddy yield in HCMC/Tay Ninh
SeasonImproved
infrastructuremanagement
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%
DifferenceT value
Season 1 67.4 89.5 -24.7 -4.2***
Season 2 72.4 86.4 -16.2 -3.1***
Season 3 121.1 112.0 8.1 2.1**
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 81/133
81
Table 4.46: Per cent of sample households affected by natural calamities in HCMC/Tay Ninh
Calamity
Improvedinfrastructu
re
management
Typicalinfrastructur
emanagement
%
Differenc
e
t value
Drought 97.92 97.03 0.9 1.0
Flood 97.92 98.02 -0.1 1.4 *
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
Table 4.47: Structure of household income of the sample farmers in HCMC/Tay Ninh
('000 VND/year)
Particulars
Improvedinfrastructur
emanagemen
t
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%Differen
cet value
Rice income 2586.8 970.5 166.5 2.4**
Non-rice crop income 3978.4 2753.4 44.5 1.0
Crop income 6565.1 3723.9 76.3 1.7*
Non-crop farm income * 3097.5 2129.7 45.4 1.8* Agricultural income 9662.6 5853.6 65.1 2.5**
Agriculture labour wage 2144.8 1378.5 55.6 -0.3
Other non-farm income 4811.1 2463.5 95.3 1.3
Non-farm self employment 2432.0 1459.0 66.7 1.6*
Non-farm income 9387.8 5300.9 77.1 0.9
Total household income 19050.4 11154.5 70.8 2.4**
Per capita household income 4137.6 2487.0 66.4 2.2**
* includes income from livestock and fisheries
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 82/133
82
Table 4.48: Per capita consumption expenditure on food items for sample households inHCMC/Tay Ninh
(Per capita / annum in VND 000’)
Particulars
Improvedinfrastructur
emanagemen
t
Typical
infrastructur e
management
%Differen
cet value
Rice 546.6 430.7 26.9 1.9*
Other cereals and staple food 1.0 0.3 184.1 ---
Meet, fish, shrimp 1050.2 617.4 70.1 1.8*
Fruits and vegetables 178.0 137.9 29.1 0.7
Milk and milk products 20.7 4.5 356.7 0.8
Beer and industrial beverages 21.4 0.0 -1.0
Coffee, tea, softdrinks, mineral water 78.4 44.3 76.8 0.7Eating and drinking outside home 0.0 0.0
Total per capita food expenditure 1896.2 1235.2 53.5 1.7*
Per household food expenditure 7870.9 5276.9 49.2 3.5***
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
Table 4.49: Estimates of incidence of poverty (per cent of total households) amongsample households in HCMC/Tay Ninh
ParticularsImproved
infrastructuremanagement
Typicalinfrastructuremanagement
%Differen
cet value
Food povertya 23 49 -52.8 -2.3**
Overall poverty based on ownassessment
b
47 42 10.1 -1.0
‘a’ estimated based on survey data 2003
‘b’ estimated based on official wealth ranking of households at commune level
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 83/133
83
Table 4.50: Change in the key outcome indicators between rehabilitated and/or improvedmanagement and non-rehabilitated and/typical management areas for head-ended andtail-ended farmers under the selected irrigation schemes
Outcome indicator Song Chuirrigation scheme
An Tranchirrigation scheme
Dau Tiengirrigation scheme
Nature of intervention Rehabilitationand improvedmanagement
Rehabilitation Improvedmanagement
HEAD-ended farmers
Paddy yield-season-1 (t/ha) 0.7* (10.9)
0.9* (14.8)
0.2(4.7)
Paddy yield-season-2 (t/ha) 1.8** (32.1)
1.1(19)
0.8** 21.6)
Rice income (VD 000 / ha 135* (19.4)
199** (35.8)
222*** 740)
Total farm income (VND 000) 3321***
(131)
2595**
(144)
6928***
(109)Total income (VND 000) 1201
*
(13.5)250(2.7)
7243***
(68.4)
Per capita food expenditure(VND 000)
142*
(10.5)-0.74(-4.9)
421**
(27.6)
TAIL-ended farmers
Paddy yield-season-1 (t/ha) 0.5(7.9)
0.1(1.5)
0.9** (25.7)
Paddy yield-season-2 (t/ha) 2.1** (39.6)
-0.8* (-11.8)
0.9** (34.6)
Rice income (VD 000 / ha 302*** (52.3)
-54(-9.7)
100** (43)
Total farm income (VND 000) 2357*** (70.8)
833** (33.3)
1530** (29)
Total income (VND 000) 520(4.3)
3024*** (42)
10730*** (102)
Per capita food expenditure(VND 000)
74* (5.7)
607** (56.7)
986*** (94.6)
Note: ***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significancerespectively
Figures in parentheses are per cent change
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 84/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 85/133
85
Table 4.52: Estimated efficiency indicators of public investments through various policyinterventions in the selected irrigation schemes
Efficiency indicatorSong Chu irrigationscheme(Thanh Hoa)
An Tranch irrigationscheme(Quang Nam)
Dau Tiengirrigation scheme(HCMC/Tay Ninh)
Nature of intervention Rehabilitation andimprovedmanagement
Rehabilitation Improvedmanagement
Value of annualincremental paddy output per 1 US $ investment(US $)
1.04 0.24 0.11
Value of annualincremental farm output per 1 US $ investment(US $)
1.31 0.30 0.35
Investment per one percent increase of farmincome/household (US $)
1.42 5.15 11.07
Investment per one percent increase of percapita food consumption(US $)
13.85 17.49 13.48
Amount spent onirrigation to bring one poor household above poverty (US $)
2,692 1,819 2,773
Data source: ADB, WB and MARD (investment made until 1997)Official exchange rates, 1997: 1 US $ = VN D 11360 ; 2002: 1 US $ = VN D 15,000
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 86/133
86
Appendix 1: Original concept note & ToRs, prepared by WB & ADB
The Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures in Vietnam
Concept note/ Draft Terms of Reference
April 10, 2002
A. Introduction
1. The Government of Vietnam (GOV) is committed to achieving rapid reductions in poverty, which is also the priority objective for multilateral and bilateral donors. Eighty-percentof Vietnam’s population lives in rural areas, and 70% of the labor force depend on agriculture.About one third of the population lives below the poverty line, and 85% of the poor live in ruralareas. The primary expenditure instrument used by the Government to improve rural incomes has been subsidized irrigation investments.3 Irrigation accounts for about half of all publicexpenditures in the agricultural sector, and three-quarters of all capital investments (about 2.5 TD,or $250 million per year).4 Much of the funding is obtained through international financingagencies. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and JBIC currently haveirrigation projects with total commitments of over $500 million.5 The primary question posed bythis study is: How effective are public irrigation expenditures in increasing rural incomes,
particularly for the poor?
2. Rice is the major irrigated crop in Vietnam and rice production in Vietnam has soaredfrom 20 million tons in 1990 to over 30 million tons by the end of the decade. Agriculturalliberalization has clearly been a driving force in this expansion, but the impact of irrigationinvestments, which have more than doubled during the 1990s, is less clear.6 A study by IFPRI in2000 concluded that there is a weak relationship, on a per-capita basis, between agriculturaloutput and public expenditures in the provinces.7 Paradoxically, amidst the growth in rice production, Vietnamese rice farmers face a stagnant farm income, primarily due to low farm-gate prices, and inappropriate government policies on a number of fronts.8
3. The findings from the study will help improve the strategy for rural transformation,which is one of the key themes of Vietnam’s CPRGS. Growth in agriculture was the driving force behind rural poverty reduction in the last decade, but in the coming decade agriculturaldiversification and growth in off-farm enterprises are likely to be key to poverty-reduction. Therole of irrigation in this process needs to be redefined.
4. The study will help GOV and donors to better understand the links between governmentexpenditure and poverty reduction. This will fit in well with current efforts in aligning
End Notes for Annexure-13 The term irrigation is used in the broad sense to cover all agricultural water control infrastructure,including drainage, flood control, and supply of water for crops.4 IFPRI, “Vietnam Public Expenditure Review: Input on the Agricultural and Rural Sectors,” March 21,2000, pg. 12, Table 6.5 Figures presented at MARD Water International Donor Support Meeting, March 2001.6 IFPRI, pg. 11.7 IFPRI, pg. 6.8 ADB, “O&M Development in the Irrigation Sector” (TA No. 2869-VIE), pg. 93.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 87/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 88/133
88
with and without the irrigation measure) including special discussions with ethnic minorities if present, female-managed households, and various others sub-groups (e.g. tail-enders and top-enders), to deepen our understanding of the issues. The quantitative study will apply agriculturalhousehold surveys in different types of irrigation schemes to test the study hypothesis. There aretwo major routes to improved irrigation service:
Better Infrastructure
Better Irrigation Infrastructure Management
8. The quantitative assessment will attempt to control as many variables such
as scheme water availability, market conditions, by focusing on differing conditions
within the same basic irrigation schemes. The case studies selected by the World Bank
and the ADB are listed below. Alternative suggestions are welcome.
9. Case 1: Testing the Impact of Irrigation Infrastructure Management: Dau Tieng. TheDau Tieng scheme is located in the southeast of Vietnam, to the northeast of Ho Chi Minh City.
The scheme consists of a 1.5 billion cubic meter reservoir and approximately 72,000 ha ofirrigation command area, of which 58,000 ha are in Tay Ninh and 14,000 ha in the Chu ChiDistrict of Ho Chi Minh City. The Dau Tieng reservoir and main canals are owned and managed by MARD, while the IMCs manage distribution off the main canals within their provincial boundaries. The provincial government of HCMC has significantly more financial and humanresources than Tay Ninh with which to address irrigation management problem. A quickinspection tour by World Bank and ADB staff indicates that the HCMC IMC is among the best-run companies in Vietnam, and the farmers are relatively more prosperous than their Tay Ninhcounterparts. Since the HCMC IMC is located downstream of Tay Ninh, scheme wateravailability would not account for this difference. In a similar manner, since the two schemes arelocated in the same general market, availability to market should not be a major factor affectingfarmer incomes. If there is a significant difference in farmer incomes in the two schemes, through
lower production costs, diversification, or yields, then the major explanatory variable could be thedifference in the management of the infrastructure.
10. Case 2: Testing the Impact of Infrastructure Rehabilitation: Da Nang or Quang Nam. The World Bank and the ADB have financed a number of irrigation rehabilitation projects inVietnam. This case would look at differences in farmer incomes on two different irrigationschemes within the same province. One of the schemes would be a rehabilitated scheme financed by the World Bank, the other scheme would be a non-rehabilitated scheme. (Alternatively,different parts of the same scheme, one section rehabilitated, the other not, could be studied). Thiscase would control for irrigation management since both schemes would be managed by the sameIMC. Since the schemes will be in the same climatic zone, scheme water availability will be partially controlled for. Differences in farmer incomes could there be explained primarily by
improved infrastructure. Since these schemes were financed under IRP, the data collected can beuseful for the ICR.
11. Case 3: Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Improved Management: Song Chu or North
Nghe An: The GOVN, through the ADB-financed Irrigation and Flood Protection RehabilitationProject (IFPRP), has rehabilitated part of the Song Chu (Thang Hoa province) and North NgheAn (Nghe An province) schemes in the mid-1990s. However, it became apparent that this wasalso necessary to improve O&M at the local level. Under ADB TA grant 2869-VIE (completed1999), a TA program was established to focus on two small pilot areas, around 300 ha each. An
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 89/133
89
interesting comparison could therefore be made between the i) non-rehabilitated areas, and ii) therehabilitated areas with the intensive pilot TA program.
12. Case 4: Poor Infrastructure and Typical Management: Cam Son. The CamSon irrigation system is located to the northwest of Hanoi, covers approximately 24,000ha and is supplied by the 228 million cubic meter Cam Son Dam. The infrastructure
appears to be degraded and the management is not exceptional. The study wouldtherefore survey farmer incomes at different locations in the scheme to see if there weresignificant differences between head-enders and tail-enders. The assumption would bethat head-enders have significantly higher incomes than tail-enders, and investments ininfrastructure and improved management would help reduce poverty. Instead of Cam Sonwe could include a set of households in Tay Ninh without any irrigation at all. Thiswould enable a comparison of the ‘no irrigation’ case with the ‘with irrigationinfrastructure (without improved management)’ case, both in Tay Ninh.
13. A summary of the case studies and their tests are:
Test With Without
1. Improved
Management
a. HCMC b. Tay Ninh
g. Cam Son
2. Improved
Infrastructure
c. Quang Nam-
Rehabilitated
d. Quang Nam-Not
Rehabilitated
g. Cam Son
3. Improved
Infrastructure and
Management
e. Song Chu
(TA Pilot and
Rehabilitated)
f. Song Shu
(Not Rehabilitated
and No TA)
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 90/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 91/133
91
E. Analysis of Survey Results
18. The qualitative information will be summarized for their main conclusions as they relateto irrigation policy measures. These will also serve to further develop the hypotheses for testingin the quantitative study, and to explain some of the relationships that will be found in thequantitative study. The data sets will be statistically analyzed to test the following draft
hypotheses that:
There will be a statistically significant difference in farmer incomes (mean, median, andstandard deviation) between HCMC (a) and Tay Ninh (b) that can be attributed primarily to better provincial management.
There will be a statistically significant difference between the rehabilitated (c) and non-rehabilitated (d) in Quang Nam.
There will be a statistically significant difference in Song Chu between the rehabilitated areaswith TA (e), and those without (f).
There will be differences between head-enders and tail-enders in all data sets, with the most pronounced difference being in Cam Son (g).
19. In addition to testing these hypotheses, the impact also needs to be quantified and setagainst the background of national household expenditures quintiles. These analyses will beassessed on the use of matching techniques. This will match households in ‘treatment’ groupswith households in ‘comparison groups’ ensuring both households are similar in observedvariables that are not related to the irrigation intervention. The impact of the irrigationinterventions can then be established by determining the difference between the treatment and thematched comparison households in the different outcome indicators associated with the project. Asimilar method is being applied in an on-going impact evaluation of rural road rehabilitation13.This information will help assess likely impacts of future irrigation projects (WB, ADB, JBIC),and also into broader sectoral programming issues over the value of infrastructure andmanagement investments, and into priority setting and public expenditure decisions withinMARD.
F. Consultant Staffing Needs:
20. The Consultant Team could consist of the following staff, although the Consultant is freeto propose an alternative-staffing plan:
International Team Leader (ITL): The ITL should be an agricultural economist with at least10 years experience in analyzing the economic impacts of rural investments in developingcountries, with specific experience in Asia and experience in irrigation. The ITL should havedemonstrated expertise in conducting participatory studies as well as formal rural householdsurveys, including survey design, methodology, and statistical analysis of results. The ITLshould have a record of academic and professional publications/reporting in the general fieldof rural poverty reduction. Expected inputs are approximately 70. The ITL, in conjunctionwith the NTL, will be responsible for the overall design and management of the surveys,
analysis, reporting of results, and liaison with the World Bank, other donors, and theGovernment of Vietnam.
National Team Leader (NTL): The NTL should have a similar profile to the ITL, but should be Vietnamese and affiliated with a recognized Vietnamese research institute.
13 Van de Walle (2002). Impact evaluation of a rural road rehabilitation project in Vietnam : a research proposal. DECRG, World Bank , Washington DC.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 92/133
92
Survey Team Leader (STL): This person should have significant experience in the design,implementation, and management of rural household surveys. The STL should be able totrain, organize, and manage a team of field surveyors, and have a relevant college degree, preferably at the graduate level.
Field Surveyors: The field surveyors should have college degree in a relevant discipline, and previous experience conducting rural household surveys.
Statistician: This person should have a degree in statistics or agricultural economics, and beactively involved in the design of the surveys, take a lead role in the statistical analysis ofresults, and assist in the ITL and NTL in the reporting.
G. Time frame
21. The assignment is expected to be of six months duration, with the following reportingschedule and payment schedule. All reports shall be in English, submitted to the World Bank,ADB and JBIC and the appropriate government agency (to be determined later). A final presentation workshop will be organized. The final report should also be in Vietnamese.
•
Contract Signing: (20%)
•
Month 1: Inception Report with detailed study methodology: (20%)
• Month 2: Qualitative field studies
• Month 3-4: Formal household surveys, with Status Report in Month 3: (20%)
• Month 5: Analysis of Data and Draft Final Report at end of Month 5: (20%)
• Month 6: Review and Comment, Final Report (20%)
H. Estimated Inputs
22. The following table provides an estimate of the number of days input for guidance
purposes only. The total cost of the assignment shall not exceed US $95,000.
Name Days
International Consultant 70
Lead National National Consultant 120
Survey Team Leader 120
Local Surveyors 175
Statistician 30
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 93/133
93
Appendix A2: Methodology on factor analysis
Exploring the fuzzy data picture sometimes requires a wide-angle lens to view itstotality. At other times it requires a close-up lens to focus on fine detail. Analysis shouldtake both these aspects into consideration. Most social science systems are complex
because they involve many variables and there are many interactions among thevariables. Therefore, they are forced to rely upon multivariate statistical andmathematical tools to uncover interactions and reduce the dimensionality of the data.
Two closely related techniques, principal component analysis and factor analysis,are used to reduce the dimensionality of multivariate data. In these techniquescorrelations and interactions among the variables are summarized in terms of a smallnumber of underlying factors. The methods rapidly identify key variables or groups ofvariables that control the system under study.
What is Factor analysis?
Factor analysis refers to a variety of statistical techniques whose common objective
is to represent a set of variables, which are inter-related, but influencing a commonvariable. To illustrate factor analysis more clearly, there are X number of variables whichhave a bearing on poverty, if these have to be grouped into homogenous groups tofacilitate comparisons among the variables poverty, such as per capita GDP, per capitaagriculture GDP, share of agriculture to GDP, irrigated area, irrigation budget, paddyyield, etc.
The fist step in the analysis is to examine the interrelationship among the variables.This can be effectively done through the correlation matrix. Inspection of this will showthat some are positively correlated and some negatively correlated and the relationship between one subset of variables is greater than the other subset. Factor analysis approach
may then be used to address whether these observed correlations could be explained bythe existence of a small number of hypothetical variables. These kinds of questions can be handled by factor analysis and principal component analysis.
At the outset the researcher will have no idea regarding the number of underlyingrelationships, referred to as dimensions there are, in a given data set. Factor analysis willhelp in determining the minimum number of underlying relationships, which can explainthe underlying dimensions that explain the co-variation among the variables.
The method of Factor Analysis involves the computation of the correlation matrixamong the variables in the data set. From this matrix the eigan root and eigan vectors areextracted. The eigan root is a measure of the importance of each eigan vector. Theimportance of the eigan vector progressively reduces and where the value of the eiganroot drops below unity the remaining eigan vectors are ignored. By this procedure thesize of the problem is reduced. The eigan vector helps in constructing a new variable,which is a linear combination of the old variables. The weights assigned to each variablein the new variable are called the principal component coefficients. The principalcomponent vectors are rotated to get the Factor vectors. The coefficients are altered whenthe eigan vectors are rotated in order to make each vector unique using a method calledthe varimax rotation. The coefficients of the rotated matrix are the factor analysiscoefficients, also called the factor loadings.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 94/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 95/133
95
Appendix A3: Questionnaire used for the survey
(To be added)
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 96/133
96
Appendix A4: Estimated regression models on determinants of the key outcomeindicators for the pooled sample households in Thanh Hoa
1a.. Determinants of rice income in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity Score Matching
Coefficients Beta Std. error t
(Constant) -317.832 403.572 -.788
HAGE .855 4.423 .193
HEDU -45.586 22.153 -2.058**
HHSIZE 77.818 37.839 2.057**
PARCEL -151.060 39.722 -3.803***
LABR .554 .071 7.788***
FERTCOST -.188 .294 -.638
FSIZE .729 .062 11.841***
IRRIGATION 9.617 2.566 3.748***
LOCDUMM1 -5.420 118.725 -.046
SOILQ -72.203 110.189 -.655
1
HH-GRUOP 574.997 148.331 3.876***
R2 .653
F 57.393***
N 347
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 97/133
97
1.b Determinants of rice income in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity Score Matching
coefficient BetaStd.error
t
(Constant) -738.118 532.346 -1.387
HAGE 9.099 5.548 1.640
HEDU -38.205 27.312 -1.399
HHSIZE 85.040 48.361 1.758*
PARCEL -129.792 59.104 -2.196**
LABR .536 .084 6.361***
FERTCOST -.341 .389 -.877
FSIZE .643 .095 6.739***
IRRIGATION 8.510 3.641 2.338**
LOCDUMM1 185.326 156.137 1.187
SOILQ -196.021 137.473 -1.426
1
HH-GRUOP 1085.224 189.258 5.734***
R2 .677
N 220
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 98/133
98
2.a Determinants of agriculture income in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. Error T
(Constant) -1794.370 1381.752 -1.299
HAGE 10.015 15.151 .661
HEDU 41.463 75.883 .546
HHSIZE 154.765 128.718 1.202
PARCEL 113.748 132.214 .860
LABR .264 .240 1.100
FSIZE 1.153 .172 6.694***
IRRIGATION 12.291 8.775 1.401
LOCDUMM1 -313.197 406.125 -.771
SOILQ -176.451 377.360 -.468
1
HH-GRUOP 1063.079 498.572 2.132**
R2 .335
F 16.928***
N 347
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 99/133
99
2.b Determinants of agriculture income in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) -1716.657 1827.164 -.940
HAGE 22.000 19.012 1.157
HEDU 48.024 93.374 .514
HHSIZE 29.356 165.806 .177
PARCEL 20.045 199.115 .101
LABR .215 .283 .761
FSIZE 1.400 .297 4.716***
IRRIGATION 11.109 12.494 .889
LOCDUMM1 -273.369 535.176 -.511
SOILQ -114.767 471.963 -.243
1
HH-GRUOP 1140.948 639.246 1.785*
R2 .346
F 11.047***
N 220
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 100/133
100
3.a. Determinants of total household income in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error T
(Constant) -6456.522 3562.584 -1.812
HAGE 55.373 39.066 1.417
HEDU 186.732 203.026 .920
HHSIZE 1021.026 328.556 3.108**
PARCEL 450.729 340.692 1.323
TOTASSET 5.214E-02 .025 2.102**
FSIZE .895 .442 2.024**
IRRIGATION 48.926 22.600 2.165**
LOCDUMM1 -903.097 999.441 -.904
SOILQ 403.372 970.556 .416
1
HH-GRUOP -1138.806 1275.296 -.893
R2 .127
F 4.877***
N 346
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; FSIZE= total croppedarea (M2); TOTASSET= total assets (VND 000’) IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 iffarm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3(good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 101/133
101
3.b Determinants of total household income in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. Error t
(Constant) -2278.103 4331.444 -.526
HAGE 29.277 45.189 .648
HEDU -124.624 223.930 -.557
HHSIZE 1385.993 395.746 3.502***
PARCEL 52.039 468.286 .111
TOTASSET 7.974E-02 .038 2.078**
FSIZE 1.413 .687 2.056**
IRRIGATION 19.846 29.615 .670
LOCDUMM1 -1556.909 1242.194 -1.253
SOILQ -421.301 1118.263 -.377
1
HH-GRUOP 76.931 1521.516 .051
R2 .175
F 4.422***
N 220
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; FSIZE= total croppedarea (M2); TOTASSET= total assets (VND 000’) IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 iffarm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3(good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 102/133
102
4.a Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in Thanh Hoa, Before Propensity ScoreMatching
coefficient Beta Std. error T
(Constant) 2053.525 326.418 6.291***
HAGE 2.581 3.678 .702
HEDU 45.639 18.569 2.458**
HHSIZE -195.194 30.633 -6.372***
FSIZE 2.035E-03 .042 .048
HHAI 1.142E-02 .013 .858
IRRIGATION .668 2.148 .311
LOCDUMM1 14.968 90.380 .166
SOILQ -23.680 91.787 -.258
1
HH-GRUOP -201.623 120.698 -1.670*
R2 .128
F 5.496***
N 347
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; FSIZE= total croppedarea (M2); HHAI= total agriculticulture income of HH (VND 000’); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area;LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 ifit is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH
is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 103/133
103
4.b Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in Thanh Hoa, After Propensity ScoreMatching
coefficient Beta Std. error T
(Constant) 1828.983 310.053 5.899***
HAGE -.741 3.408 -.217
HEDU 21.537 16.826 1.280
HHSIZE -123.898 29.411 -4.213***
FSIZE 3.279E-02 .048 .689
HHAI 1.106E-02 .012 .888
IRRIGATION .119 2.250 .053
LOCDUMM1 -47.997 85.104 -.564
SOILQ -83.374 83.913 -.994
HH-GRUOP 41.730 114.546 .364
R2 .116
F 3.049***
N 220
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH;HHAI=total agricultureincome of HH (VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area;LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 ifit is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH
is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 104/133
104
Appendix A5: Estimated regression models on determinants of the key outcomeindicators for the pooled sample households in Quang Nam
1.a: Determinants of rice income in Quang Nam, Before Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. Error T
(Constant) 687.979 414.475 1.660*
HAGE 2.354 3.868 .609
HEDU -4.080 17.837 -.229
HHSIZE -1.279 33.558 -.038
PARCEL 27.507 58.978 .466
LABR 1.739E-02 .058 .300
FERTCOST .647 .211 3.063***
FSIZE .353 .092 3.830***
IRRIGATION -1.416 2.330 -.608
LOCDUMM1 327.524 106.113 3.087***
SOILQ -163.348 121.267 -1.347
1
HH-GRUOP -435.412 114.593 -3.800***
R2 .155
F 7.271***
N 448
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 105/133
105
1.b: Determinants of rice income in Quang Nam, After Propensity Score Matching
cvoefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 802.584 568.834 1.411
HAGE 1.620 5.603 .289
HEDU -3.575 27.144 -.132
HHSIZE -57.764 48.278 -1.196
PARCEL -88.477 79.119 -1.118
LABR .136 .075 1.808*
FERTCOST -.219 .268 -.818
FSIZE .704 .137 5.126***
IRRIGATION -1.015 2.443 -.416
LOCDUMM1 352.631 154.093 2.288**
SOILQ -153.682 161.096 -.954
1
HH-GRUOP 275.242 147.147 1.871**
R2 .288
F 6.592***
N 191
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor cost
incurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 106/133
106
2.a: Determinants of agriculture income in Quang Nam, Before Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 676.396 1144.996 .591
HAGE .386 10.711 .036
HEDU 20.172 49.388 .408
HHSIZE 244.631 92.268 2.651***
PARCEL -56.591 161.236 -.351
LABR .326 .150 2.177**
FSIZE .837 .255 3.278***
IRRIGATION -1.278 6.446 -.198
LOCDUMM1 -20.449 293.801 -.070
SOILQ -693.622 334.692 -2.072**
HH-GRUOP -519.583 316.442 -1.642
R2 .117
F 5.781***
N 448
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 107/133
107
2.b: Determinants of agriculture income in Quang Nam, After Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 747.549 1458.275 .513
HAGE -10.629 14.460 -.735
HEDU 74.448 70.058 1.063
HHSIZE 57.087 123.836 .461
PARCEL -375.122 203.360 -1.845*
LABR .188 .191 .983
FSIZE 1.373 .355 3.872***
IRRIGATION 3.292 6.291 .523
LOCDUMM1 43.999 397.706 .111
SOILQ -454.103 414.477 -1.096
1
HH-GRUOP 1331.287 370.420 3.594***
R2 .226
F 5.258***
N 191
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively.
Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 108/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 109/133
109
3.b Determinants of total household income in Quang Nam, After Propensity Score Matching
Coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) -3944.720 3377.327 -1.168
HAGE 52.147 34.912 1.494
HEDU 333.779 168.452 1.981**
HHSIZE 210.127 309.445 .679
PARCEL -928.559 497.574 -1.866*
TOTASSET .132 .024 5.580***
FSIZE 2.939 .862 3.409***
IRRIGATION 7.679 14.988 .512
LOCDUMM1 771.874 950.348 .812
SOILQ -1112.865 1000.002 -1.113
1
HH-GROUP 1080.706 887.976 1.217
R2 0.309
F 8.039***
N 191
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; TOTASSET= totalassets (VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 iffarm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3(good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 110/133
110
4.a Determinants of per capita food consumpyion expenditure in Quang Nam, Before Propensity ScoreMatching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 1925.201 359.405 5.357***
HAGE 2.780 3.425 .812
HEDU 17.946 15.858 1.132
HHSIZE -177.458 30.271 -5.862***
FSIZE -5.356E-04 .058 -.009
HHAI 3.737E-02 .016 2.410**
IRRIGATION .495 2.026 .244
LOCDUMM1 193.621 95.048 2.037**
SOILQ 256.259 109.131 2.348**
1
HH-GRUOP -181.792 98.975 -1.837*
R2 0.108
F 5.873***
B 448
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; HHAI= total agricultureincome of HH(VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area;LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 ifit is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH
is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 111/133
111
4.b Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in Quang Nam, After Propensity ScoreMatching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 1581.168 386.164 4.095***
HAGE -3.608 3.987 -.905
HEDU -7.091 19.307 -.367
HHSIZE -85.092 34.545 -2.463**
FSIZE 1.459E-02 .069 .211
HHAI 1.239E-02 .021 .603
IRRIGATION 2.067 1.684 1.228
LOCDUMM1 15.535 108.643 .143
SOILQ 263.226 114.649 2.296**
1
HH-GRUOP 285.299 105.440 2.706***
R2 .105
F 2.351**
N 191
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; HHAI=total agricultureincome of HH (VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area;LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 ifit is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH
is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 112/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 113/133
113
1.b. Determinants of rice income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, After Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 4308.802 2873.316 1.500
HAGE -17.420 20.344 -.856
HEDU 23.501 85.688 .274
HHSIZE -91.709 157.856 -.581
PARCEL -273.502 203.833 -1.342
LABR .370 .146 2.528**
FERTCOST -.169 .179 -.947
FSIZE .306 .052 5.852***
IRRIGATION -6.191 22.000 -.281
LOCDUMM1 762.539 518.227 1.471
SOILQ -2886.723 1534.424 -1.881*
1
HH-GRUOP 1006.290 499.953 2.013**
R2 .298
F 7.144***
N 197
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor cost
incurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 114/133
114
2.a Determinants of agriculture income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, Before Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 6298.603 4190.584 1.503
HAGE -93.359 37.583 -2.484**
HEDU 103.365 174.650 .592
HHSIZE 179.524 308.092 .583
PARCEL 877.142 378.874 2.315**
LABR .102 .109 .932
FSIZE .416 .062 6.709***
IRRIGATION 24.527 27.633 .888
LOCDUMM1 -143.700 956.070 -.150
SOILQ -2887.138 1754.009 -1.646*
HH-GRUOP 3709.297 1088.792 3.407***
R2 .179
F 9.775***
N 459
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 115/133
115
2.b Determinants of agriculture income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, After Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 1608.615 6559.519 .245
HAGE -43.602 46.741 -.933
HEDU 54.626 197.042 .277
HHSIZE 442.963 362.626 1.222
PARCEL 951.217 468.159 2.032**
LABR 1.820E-02 .314 .058
FSIZE .726 .109 6.635***
IRRIGATION 61.523 50.583 1.216
LOCDUMM1 2820.835 1174.217 2.402**
SOILQ -7994.879 3405.884 -2.347**
HH-GRUOP 2213.974 1141.229 1.940*
R2 .356
F 10.292***
N 197
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; LABR=total labor costincurred for rice cultivation (VND 000’); FERTCOST= total fertilizer cost for rice (VND 000’); FSIZE=total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-endcanal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6(average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 116/133
116
3.a: Determinants of total household income in HCMC/Tay Ninh, Before Propensity Score Matching
coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 556.528 5391.290 .103
HAGE -61.636 48.668 -1.266
HEDU 195.309 225.235 .867
HHSIZE 2006.908 394.863 5.083***
PARCEL 1720.253 489.880 3.512***
TOTASSET 8.494E-02 .019 4.433***
FSIZE .277 .080 3.471***
IRRIGATION 31.082 35.550 .874
LOCDUMM1 -1765.049 1249.141 -1.413
SOILQ -4865.772 2271.618 -2.142**
HH-GRUOP 5115.646 1520.446 3.365***
R2 .259
F 15.650***
N 459
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; TOTASSET=totalassets (VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area; LOCDUMMY= 1 iffarm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 if it is soil types 1-3(good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH is from TG and 0for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 117/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 118/133
118
4.a: Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in HCMC/Tay Ninh, Before PropensityScore Matching
Coefficient Beta Std. error t
(Constant) 1203.230 319.552 3.765***
HAGE 2.984 3.002 .994
HEDU 14.156 13.856 1.022
HHSIZE -182.097 24.181 -7.531***
FSIZE 1.795E-02 .005 3.538***
HHAI 6.674E-03 .004 1.792*
IRRIGATION 5.795 2.160 2.683***
LOCDUMM1 149.357 75.281 1.984**
SOILQ -29.151 138.871 -.210
HH-GRUOP 433.620 86.565 5.009***
R2 0.230
F 14.940***
N 459
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; HHAI=total agricultureincome of HH (VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area;LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 ifit is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH
is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 119/133
119
4.b. Determinants of per capita food consumption expenditure in HCMC/Tay Ninh, After Propensity ScoreMatching
Coefficient Beta Std. erroe t
(Constant) 848.341 699.539 1.213
HAGE 3.577 5.106 .701
HEDU 15.368 21.087 .729
HHSIZE -261.791 39.050 -6.704***
FSIZE 1.944E-02 .013 1.525
HHAI 8.799E-03 .008 1.113
IRRIGATION 9.098 5.403 1.684*
LOCDUMM1 133.942 126.951 1.055
SOILQ 237.761 375.591 .633
HH-GRUOP 589.498 123.277 4.782***
R2 0.325
F 9.997***
N 197
***, ** and * indicate 1%, 5% and 10% probability levels of significance respectively. Note: HAGE= Age of household head (years); HEDU= Education of HH head (schooling years);HHSIZE= Number of HH members; PARCEL= number of partcels owned by HH; HHAI=total agricultureincome of HH (VND 000’); FSIZE= total cropped area (M2); IRRIGATION= % irrigated area;LOCDUMMY= 1 if farm is located at head-end canal and 0 therwise; SOILQ=Soil quality type-binary 1 ifit is soil types 1-3 (good quality); and 0 for 4-6 (average quality); HH-GROUP=household group (1 if HH
is from TG and 0 for CG).
Dependent variable is in VND 000’
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 120/133
120
Appendix A7: Methodology on application of propensity score matching technique
Let consider sample households representing the project areas where policyinterventions took place in the selected irrigation schemes as ‘treatment group’ (TG); andtheir counterparts in the neighbouring project areas where no interventions took place as
‘control group’ (CG). In the absence of baseline information in both areas of TG and CGat the start of interventions, determination of a counterfactual is crucial to disassociate theeffect caused by factors other than interventions on the outcome indicators. Thus, asimple difference between TG and CG after a few years of project intervention could not be exclusively attributable to such interventions. This is because the groups areheterogeneous with respect to non-outcome variables and therefore the comparison is notfair.
Although random sampling technique was followed to select sample householdsfrom TG and CG, sometimes the samples may not be closely similar with respect to non-outcome parameters. Then it will be very difficult to assess the impact of the project
interventions unless sample households from both TG and CG are closely similar withrespect to non-outcome variables. These non-outcome variables such as various socio-economic and biophysical features, which may not be influenced by initiation of policyinterventions, but are likely to affect outcome variables such as farm income, totalincome and food expenditure.
Let Pi denote intention in the project areas ith
household. If ith
household belongto TG then Pi = 1, and otherwise (CG) Pi = 0. Consider key outcome variable income Y1i for the ith household of TG which indicates household income Y when P = 1. Then Y0i forith
household of CG, when P = 0. The expected gain, G from the project intervention canthen be expressed as:
G = E (Y1i - Y0i) ⎟ P=1)
This is the conditional mean impact for ith household due to the belonging to project area (TG) where intervention took place. It is sometimes called the averagetreatment effect or the average treatment effect. However G cannot consider as a gain inthe income due to intervention in the project area, because there could be otherunobservable variables that might be causing outcome variables in both Tg and CGgroups.
D = E (Yii ⎟ P=1) - E (Y0i ⎟ P=0)
Then D and G can be linked as
G = D + B
Then B is considered as a bias in the estimate, which can be expressed as
B = E (Y0i ⎟ P=1) - E (Y0i ⎟ P=0)
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 121/133
121
The reason why the differences in the impact between treated and untreatedgroups is not visible is due to the bias in the data. This may not have happened if theentire sample was randomly selected and then post-stratified into treatment and controlgroup, which is a difficult task when interventions were took place at community level.Although both sample households for both groups have been randomly selected in thisstudy, however they likely to give considerable biased results because the irrigation
interventions were not took place at household level. Therefore it will underestimate oroverestimate the effect of the project intervention. Sometimes, we will find that the project intervention is producing no benefit even though it is actually producing benefits.
To overcome the problem of this bias, two groups of households should be madecomparable closely with respect to non-outcome variables. That is to select a controlgroup, which is similar in character to the group of treated households. This is a difficulttask if one were to do it manually as for each treated household and it would be difficultto find an identical control household. A propensity score matching technique suggested by Ravallion (2001) was applied to over the problem, and formed two comparison groupsfrom the entire sample
This was done by regressing TG and CG which are given values 1 and 0respectively on a set of non-impact independent variables such as age of the head of thehousehold, family size, education of the head of the household, soil type, distance frommain canal and so on for the pooled sample.
As dependent variable in this case is a binary, the logistic regression is estimatedas for the pooled data (combined TG and CG ), which may be expressed as
P = a + b1X1+ b2X2+ …+ b pX p + e.
Where P are binary values (1 for TG, and 0 for CG), X1, X2…Xn are selectednon-outcome variables, e = random disturbance term
Estimated logit models were furnished in Appendix A8.
The probabilities of each sample household is calculated using the formula:
P(1) = 1/( 1 + e-p).
These probabilities (P(1)) are called propensity scores. Frequency distribution ofcomputed propensity scores were presented in Appendix A9
Then sample households from TG, whose propensity scores are closely matchedto those households from CG are selected and the rest eliminated, and formed twocomparison groups (one for TG and other for CG). These comparison groups were finallyconsidered for estimation of gain G.
G = i(Y1i⎟ P=k) - E (Y0i) ⎟ P=k}, where k is some constant range of propensityscore, and that could be attributable mainly to the project interventions
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 122/133
122
Appendix A8: Estimated logistic regressions on factors influencing the proectintervention in the selected irrigation schemes
(a) Thanh Hoa
------------------------ Variables in the Equation ------------------------
Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)
HAGE .0408 .0104 15.4652 1 .0001 .1687 1.0416
HHSIZE -.2179 .0915 5.6696 1 .0173 -.0881 .8042
LOCATION .9738 2 .6145 .0000
LOCATION(1) -.3241 .3304 .9620 1 .3267 .0000 .7232
LOCATION(2) -.2076 .3219 .4159 1 .5190 .0000 .8125
DROUGHT(1) 2.2686 1.0919 4.3170 1 .0377 .0700 9.6661
FLOOD(1) .9223 .7151 1.6631 1 .1972 .0000 2.5149
PARCEL .5217 .0895 33.9859 1 .0000 .2601 1.6850
HGENDER(1) .1501 .2779 .2918 1 .5891 .0000 1.1620SOILQUA .5224 .1330 15.4167 1 .0001 .1684 1.6861
Constant -8.4517 1.5538 29.5857 1 .0000
Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because
Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.
-2 Log Likelihood 385.674
Goodness of Fit 361.433
Cox & Snell - R^2 .222
Nagelkerke - R^2 .299
Classification Table for GROUP
The Cut Value is .50
Predicted
0 1 Percent Correct
0 ó 1
Observed ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
0 0 ó 166 ó 34 ó 83.00%
ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
1 1 ó 57 ó 90 ó 61.22%ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
Overall 73.78%
Results of Propensity Matching
Untreated treated
0.31 to 0.69 155 114
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 123/133
123
(b) Quang Nam
------------------------ Variables in the Equation ------------------------
Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)
HAGE .0115 .0077 2.2173 1 .1365 .0193 1.0116
HHSIZE -.1130 .0751 2.2652 1 .1323 -.0213 .8932
LOCATION 1.4821 2 .4766 .0000
LOCATION(1) -.0957 .2711 .1247 1 .7239 .0000 .9087
LOCATION(2) -.3394 .2838 1.4301 1 .2317 .0000 .7122
DROUGHT(1) 1.1661 1.2133 .9238 1 .3365 .0000 3.2095
FLOOD(1) .7323 .3838 3.6413 1 .0564 .0530 2.0799
PARCEL .6519 .0979 44.3453 1 .0000 .2690 1.9192
HGENDER(1) -.0105 .2311 .0020 1 .9639 .0000 .9896
SOILQUA -.4183 .1244 11.3087 1 .0008 -.1261 .6582
Constant -.3686 .9376 .1545 1 .6943
Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because
Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.
-2 Log Likelihood 505.733
Goodness of Fit 436.651
Cox & Snell - R^2 .162
Nagelkerke - R^2 .223
Classification Table for GROUP
The Cut Value is .50
Predicted
0 1 Percent Correct
0 ó 1
Observed ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
0 0 ó 251 ó 36 ó 87.46%
ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
1 1 ó 95 ó 66 ó 40.99%
ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
Overall 70.76%
Results of Propensity Matching
Untreated treated
0.28 to 0.65 207 125
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 124/133
124
(c) HCMC/Tay Ninh
------------------------ Variables in the Equation ------------------------
Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)
HAGE .0222 .0116 3.6718 1 .0553 .0532 1.0225
HHSIZE -.1309 .1058 1.5290 1 .2163 .0000 .8773LOCATION 12.2805 2 .0022 .1185
LOCATION(1) 1.1246 .3773 8.8833 1 .0029 .1080 3.0790
LOCATION(2) -.2118 .3896 .2954 1 .5868 .0000 .8092
DROUGHT(1) 1.4046 .9458 2.2053 1 .1375 .0187 4.0739
FLOOD(1) .9586 1.0314 .8638 1 .3527 .0000 2.6080
PARCEL .0799 .1219 .4295 1 .5122 .0000 1.0832
HGENDER(1) .5614 .3277 2.9351 1 .0867 .0398 1.7532
SOILQUA 2.5712 .2483 107.2361 1 .0000 .4224 13.0819
Constant -9.2617 1.1375 66.2994 1 .0000
Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because
Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.
-2 Log Likelihood 294.421
Goodness of Fit 2273.075
Cox & Snell - R^2 .474
Nagelkerke - R^2 .656
Classification Table for GROUPThe Cut Value is .50
Predicted
0 1 Percent Correct
0 ó 1
Observed ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
0 0 ó 286 ó 16 ó 94.70%
ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòô
1 1 ó 39 ó 118 ó 75.16%
ôòòòòòòòôòòòòòòòôOverall 88.02%
Results of Propensity Matching
Untreated treated
0.18 to 0.5 75 95
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 125/133
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 126/133
126
(b) Quang Nam
Group
Rehabilitated Non-rehabilitatedRange
N % N %
0.00 to 0.10 5 3.1 19 6.6
0.11 to 0.20 31 19.4 49 17.1
0.21 to 0.27 15 9.4 72 25.1
0.28 to 0.30 14 8.8 15 5.2
0.31 to 0.40 23 14.4 26 9.1
0.41 to 0.50 16 10.0 18 6.3
0.51 to 0.60 15 9.4 17 5.9
0.61 to 0.70 12 7.5 13 4.5
0.71 to 0.80 10 6.3 12 4.2
0.81 to 0.90 11 6.9 25 8.7
0.91 to 1.00 8 5.0 21 7.3
Total 160 100 287 100
Note: Bolded and italicized ranges were considered as the closest matches for finalanalysis
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 127/133
127
HCMC/Tay Ninh
Group
Improvedinfrastructure and
management
Non-improvedinfrastructure and
management
Range
N % N %
0.00 to 0.10 7 4.5 35 11.6
0.11 to 0.14 7 4.5 44 14.6
0.15 to 0.20 6 3.8 14 4.6
0.21 to 0.30 5 3.2 5 1.7
0.31 to 0.40 11 7.0 12 4.0
0.41 to 0.50 10 6.4 10 3.3
0.51 to 0.60 14 8.9 16 5.30.61 to 0.70 8 5.1 9 3.0
0.71 to 0.80 12 7.6 12 4.0
0.81 to 0.90 23 14.6 23 7.6
0.90 to 0.94 7 4.5 14 4.6
0.95 to 1.00 47 29.9 108 35.8
Total 157 100 302 100
Note: Bolded and italicized ranges were considered as the closest matches for finalanalysis
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 128/133
128
Appendix A10.a: Season-wise (per planted area) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inThanh Hoa
(VND 000’ per planted area)
Particulars
Rehabilitat
ed and TAarea
Non-rehabilitated and non-
TA area
%Difference t test
SEASON-1
Area planted (M2) 1941 938 107.0 5.0***
Own labour cost 522 327 60.0 3.0***Purchased input cost 675 385 75.3 4.2**Total cost 1197 711 68.3 4.1***
Paddy output (kg) 1320 573 130.4 8.2***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.71 1.75 -2.5 -0.8Gross value of rice production 2248 996 125.9 6.3 ***
Net return 1051 284 270.1 4.5***Farm operating surplus 1574 611 157.7 5.8***SEASON-2
Area planted (M2) 1941 938 107.0 5.0***Own labour cost 521 354 47.3 3.1***Purchased input cost 633 359 76.2 3.7***Total cost 1154 713 61.9 4.0***
Paddy output (kg) 1360 510 166.7 10.3***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.70 1.77 -3.5 -0.8Gross value of rice production 2290 899 154.8 6.7 *** Net return 1136 186 511.1 6.1***
Farm operating surplus 1657 540 207.1 6.4*** Note: Since average area planted rice during season-3 was only 180 mt
2and 10 mt
2 in
rehabilitated and TA area and non-rehabilitated and non-TA area respectively, cost-returndetails were not furnished separately for season-3, but they were included for all seasons-average.
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 129/133
129
Appendix A10.b: Season-wise (per hectare) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inThanh Hoa
(VND 000’ per hectare)
Particulars Rehabilitatedand TA area
Non-
rehabilitated andnon-TA
area
%Difference
t value
SEASON-1
Area planted (M2) 1941 938 107.0 5.0***Own labour cost 2691 3482 -22.7 -0.1Purchased input cost 3476 4105 -15.3 -1.2Total cost 6167 7587 -18.7 -0.7
Yield (tones/ha) 6.8 6.1 11.8 7.8***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.71 1.75 -2.5 -0.8Gross value of rice production 11584 10617 9.1 6.0 *** Net return 5416 3030 78.8 4.5***Farm operating surplus 8108 6512 24.5 6.4***Unit cost of rice production(000`VND/ton)
512 676 -24.3 -3.9***
SEASON-2
Area planted (M2) 1941 938 107.0 5.0***Own labour cost 2684 3772 -28.8 0.2Purchased input cost 3261 3831 -14.9 -1.6*Total cost 5945 7603 -21.8 -0.6
Yield (tones/ha) 6.9 5.4 27.6 12.3***Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.70 1.77 -3.5 -0.8Gross value of rice production 11797 9586 23.1 9.6 *** Net return 5852 1982 195.2 7.3***Farm operating surplus 8536 5754 48.3 8.7***Unit cost of rice production(000`VND/ton)
471 706 -33.3 -4.9***
Note: Same as in appendix 10.a
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 130/133
130
Appendix A11.a: Season-wise (per planted area) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inQuang Nam
(VND 000’ per planted area)
ParticularsRehabilitat
ed
Non-rehabilitate
d
%Differenc
et value
SEASON-1
Area planted (M2) 1532 1350 13.4 1.3Own labour cost 401 460 -12.9 -0.2Purchased input cost 767 592 29.5 2.1**Total cost (000 VND) 1168 1052 11.0 1.0
Paddy output (Kg) 1006 770 30.7 2.4**
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.81 1.73 4.3 0.9Gross value of rice production 1819 1332 36.6 4.0*** Net return 652 280 132.9 3.0***Farm operating surplus 1052 740 42.2 3.0***
SEASON-2Area planted (M2) 1550 1350 14.8 1.4*Own labour cost 418 460 -9.1 -0.1Purchased input cost 763 589 29.4 2.4**Total cost 1181 1050 12.5 1.3
Paddy output (Kg) 973 762 27.8 2.3**
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.77 1.73 2.3 0.3Gross value of rice production 1722 1318 30.6 3.6*** Net return (000 VND) 541 269 101.3 2.7**Farm operating surplus (000VND) 959 729 31.6 2.7***
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 131/133
131
Appendix A11.b: Season-wise (per hectare) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inQuang Nam
(VND 000’ perha)
ParticularsRehabili
tated
Non-rehabilitat
ed
%Differen
cet value
SEASON-1
CostsOwn labour cost 2618 3409 -23.2 -1.8*Purchased input cost 5006 4385 14.2 0.2Total cost 7624 7794 -2.2 -1.2 Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 6.6 5.7 15.4 1.8*
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.81 1.73 4.3 0.9Gross value of rice production 11878 9867 20.4 1.6 Net return 4254 2073 105.3 2.3**
Farm operating surplus 6872 5482 25.4 2.3**Unit cost of rice production (000VND ton) 761 770 -1.1 -1.5*SEASON-2
CostsOwn labour cost 2699 3409 -20.8 -1.8*Purchased input cost 4920 4366 12.7 0.1Total cost 7619 7775 -2.0 -1.2Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 6.3 5.6 11.2 1.6*
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.77 1.73 2.3 0.3Gross value of rice production 11108 9766 13.7 0.8 Net return 3489 1990 75.3 2.1**Farm operating surplus 6188 5399 14.6 1.9*Unit cost of rice production (`000 VNDton)
784 774 1.3 -1.5*
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 132/133
132
Appendix A12.a: Season-wise (per planted area) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inhcmc/Tay Ninh
(VND 000’ per planted area)
Particulars
Improvedinfrastructu
re andmanageme
nt
Non-improvedinfrastruct
ure andmanageme
nt
%
Difference
t value
SEASON-1
Area planted (M2) 4286 2727 57.2 2.6**
Own labour cost 688 465 47.9 1.4*Purchased input cost 1671 987 69.2 3.2***Total cost 2359 1453 62.4 3.1***
Paddy output (kg) 1910 1001 91.0 6.3***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.28 1.07 18.8 4.6***
Gross value of rice production 2445 1071 128.3 5.9*** Net return 86 -382 -122.5 -2.2**Farm operating surplus 774 83 827.6 2.5***SEASON-2
Area planted (M2) 5068 3785 33.9 1.2Own labour cost 623 402 55.1 0.8Purchased input cost 1776 1193 48.9 3.7***Total cost 2399 1594 50.5 3.5***
Paddy output (kg) 1923 1201 60.1 6.1***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.44 1.18 22.8 5.6***Gross value of rice production 2769 1417 95.4 5.3***
Net return 370 -178 -308.1 2.0Farm operating surplus 992 224 343.3 2.3SEASON-3
Area planted (M2) 3152 3079 2.4 1.0Own labour cost 325 292 11.1 0.9Purchased input cost (000 VND) 1106 976 13.3 2.0*Total cost 1431 1268 12.8 1.9*
Paddy output (kg) 1251 1044 19.8 3.1***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.54 1.57 -1.8 -1.4*Gross value of rice production 1926 1639 17.5 2.5** Net return (000 VND) 495 371 33.6 1.1
Farm operating surplus (000VND) 820 663 23.7 1.2
8/9/2019 VIE PDA: Poverty Impact of Public Irrigation Expenditures (Final Report)
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/vie-pda-poverty-impact-of-public-irrigation-expenditures-final-report 133/133
Appendix A12.b: Season-wise (per hectare) cost-return profile for rice cultivation inhcmc/Tay Ninh
(VND 000’ per ha)
Particulars
Improvedinfrastructure
and
management
Non-improvedinfrastructure
and
management
%Difference
t value
SEASON-1
Costs
Own labour cost 1606 1707 -5.9 -2.2**
Purchased input cost 3898 3621 7.6 0.7
Total cost 5504 5328 3.3 0.2
Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 4.5 3.7 22.3 4.7***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.28 1.07 18.8 4.6***
Gross value of rice production 5704 3927 45.3 5.2***
Net return 200 -1401 -114.3 2.3**
Farm operating surplus 1806 306 490.2 2.0**Unit cost of rice production ((000VND/ton) 872 990 -12 1.5*
SEASON-2
Costs
Own labour cost 1229 1061 15.8 -2.4**
Purchased input cost 3505 3151 11.2 1.1
Total cost 4734 4212 12.4 0.4
Returns
Yield (tones/ha) 3.8 3.2 18.9 5.7***
Paddy price received (000 VND/kg) 1.44 1.18 22.8 5.6***
Gross value of rice production 5463 3743 46.0 4.9**
Net return 729 -469 -255.4 2.1**
Farm operating surplus 1958 591 231.1 1.7*